Either-or

Impolitical has largely dealt with the latest report on sketchy practices under Patrick Brazeau's watch, including distributing cash to members at meetings and continuing to make payments on projects which had expired. But let's note as well what the story has to say about the Cons' vetting process or lack thereof:

Health Canada is demanding the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples return up to $260,000 in ineligible expenses after an audit found directors of the native advocacy group divvied up thousands of dollars in federal cash with insufficient evidence of where the money went.

The federal department has suspended all funding to the organization, led until recently by new Conservative Senator Patrick Brazeau, until the group comes up with a plan to pay back the money and respond to the government's concerns.

Health Canada launched an audit in late 2007 to find out what happened to $472,900 it transferred to the congress for projects aimed at improving aboriginal health in areas such as early childhood development and diabetes.

Auditors discovered a long list of problems, including improper per diem claims, the hiring of consultants without contracts or competition and the handing out of large sums of cash to directors with little explanation...

The department said it will not finalize and publish the audit until it is repaid by the congress. Health Canada's comments were in response to questions from The Globe, which obtained a draft audit report dated March 28, 2008.

Now, it would seem fairly likely that the audit report would have been seen by the higher-ups at the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples, particularly given how quick the organization was to come up with excuses and explanations once the Globe and Mail started investigating.

Which raises the question about just how much the Cons knew when they first announced their intention to give Brazeau the cushiest patronage appointment in Canadian history. And it doesn't look like any answer will be a positive for the Cons.

On the one hand, it could be that the Cons did so little vetting that they didn't so much as check with Brazeau or any of the people he's worked with in the role which set him up for his impending appointment about the existence of financial impropriety while he was in charge. Which seems entirely possible given the Cons' haste to stack the Senate, but looks to be going even further than the lack of preparation which was already known. (And it's worth wondering as well whether Brazeau and his entourage were fully forthcoming in answering any questions which the Cons might have posed.)

Or on the other hand, the Cons could have known about the problem and decided to appoint Brazeau anyway. Again, that wouldn't come as much surprise given how brazen they've been about ensuring that none of their own face meaningful consequences for their actions. But it would surely serve as a damning indictment of the standards of any government to state that misuse of public funds is seen as grounds for a lifetime promotion.

Not surprisingly, either problem would only be amplified in the context of a recession where the government which has shown either gross incompetence or disinterest in financial accountability now plans to manage a multi-billion dollar stimulus package. And regardless of what the Cons knew or should have known earlier, the more stubborn they are in ramming through their Senate appointments in the wake of public revelations like these, the more impetus the opposition parties should have to make sure the Brazeau appointment is one of Harper's last mistakes.