319

The Auditor General’s statement


 

A written statement just delivered from Sheila Fraser’s office.

We will not release or comment on our audit report on the G8 Legacy Infrastructure Fund. Under the Auditor General Act, we can only present reports when Parliament is sitting. The Office of the Audit General of Canada remains the custodian of its reports until they are presented to the Speaker of the House of Commons for tabling.

I strongly caution the public to wait until our final report on the G8 Legacy Infrastructure Fund has been tabled in Parliament and made public.

We work very hard to keep our reports confidential before they are tabled. There are indications that an early draft of this report may have been released by someone outside our Office. Our normal audit process requires that we share early drafts of our reports with government departments. We do this so they can validate the facts on which our conclusions are based, provide any additional relevant information, and so they can prepare responses to our recommendations. Sometimes during the process of fact validation, additional information is brought to our attention. Only the final report that is tabled in Parliament represents our audit findings and conclusions.


 

The Auditor General’s statement

  1. So Sheila Fraser confirms the authenticity of the report and suggests that departments provide facts but do not have a say in her final conclusions. In short, the conclusions in the final report are very likely the same as the draft report.

  2. So Sheila Fraser confirms the authenticity of the report and suggests that departments provide facts but do not have a say in her final conclusions. In short, the conclusions in the final report are very likely the same as the draft report.

    • In short, only THE FINAL report represents the AG's findings and conclusions.

      • But she doesn't say the draft is seriously at odds with the final document. Possibly she cannot hint at even that. But i would have expected her to issue a strong denial if that were the case, since we are in an election. Perhaps she did hint at that when she says people should wait for the final document. It is all a little strange.

        • But i would have expected her to issue a strong denial if that were the case

          Why? It's not appropriate for the AG to confirm or deny anything until the final report is released. It's too bad that a draft was illegally leaked in the first place.

          • "It's too bad that a draft was illegally leaked in the first place. "
            oh ya, agonized lament from coast to coast
            the worm is turning, he he

          • Exactly. If anything, my reading of her statement is that she did hint at the draft being at odds with the final document.

            "I strongly caution the public to wait until our final report on the G8 Legacy Infrastructure Fund has been tabled in Parliament and made public."

            But then, that is simply in keeping with her statement that only the FINAL draft represents her findings and conclusions.

        • This is just saying "We can't comment" and explaining why they can't.

        • No way, kcm.

          You are taking logic back to grade six where, in the attempt to figure out who Jeremy has a crush on… Is it Lisa? "No." Is it Caroline? "No." Is it Julia? "Oh, gross, no way!" Is it Pam? "No." Cathy? "No." Helen? "I'm not telling!"

          Jeremy and Helen, sitting in a tree…

          Grown adults who work according to the laws governing their duties don't work that way, where denials are denials, and no-comments are confirmations. And your expectation above does a disservice to her office.

  3. Thank you, Ms.Fraser.

    Very, very professional comment on her part. She is as consistent as she goes.

  4. Thank you, Ms.Fraser.

    Very, very professional comment on her part. She is as consistent as she goes.

  5. In short, only THE FINAL report represents the AG's findings and conclusions.

  6. This comment was deleted.

    • "Read between the lines that the final report is not a verbatim of the draft report."

      The statement doesn't say that at all, that's just what you want to think.

      Basically, the statement says that only the final report represents the AG's findings and conclusions and this can not be released until parliament is in session.

      We can't deduce anything about the relationship between the draft and final versions.

      Which is most unfortunate.

    • How on earth could the opposition release the draft, maliciously or otherwise? They never had it to begin with.

    • Don't jump to conclusions. Ryan Sparrow unelected unofficial nobody working in the Conservative Party war room has a copy of the final draft according to WK. It's done. The PM has it.

    • Actually CP admits they received the draft from someone in another party.

      "A Jan. 13 draft chapter from the report dealing with the $50-million G8 Legacy Infrastructure Fund spending in Industry Minister Tony Clement's Parry Sound-Muskoka riding was leaked to the The Canadian Press by a supporter of an opposition party." (http://tinyurl.com/5tmkbk7).

      • Hint: "supporter" != "in"

  7. We are not to speculate about the facts of the report until it is officially released. I guess that settles that.

    Oh, and thank you to Mr. Wherry for posting this so soon. Miracles never cease, do they.

  8. I wonder if this leak during the election could have the same effect as the false RCMP investigation into Goodale in the 2006 election.

    One can only hope.

  9. We are not to speculate about the facts of the report until it is officially released. I guess that settles that.

    Oh, and thank you to Mr. Wherry for posting this so soon. Miracles never cease, do they.

    • I also suppose I won't be the only one pointing out the irony that the report would have been officially released by now if it were not for an election forced by the opposition on the basis of alleged Parliamentary abuse. Ain't irony a kick in the head?

      • The fact that the government fell on hiding financial information doesn't look to good right now, does it?

        • Nobody remembers those trumped-up charges, and the AG just gave the government all the cover they need. Another swing-and-a-miss by our lovable but oh-so-inept Canadian opposition parties.

          • Y'know, I'm not a supporter of any particular party, but if I were I hope I would not gloat about the likelihood of them being able to hide atrocious behaviour and having good cover. "YAY! look what we got away with!" doesn't do it ofr me.

          • This comment was deleted.

          • Dennis of course, is an impartial observer.

      • Alleged?…whether you like it or not the opposition are the majority while there's a minority parliament. The govt WAS found in contempt. Would you have been happy if Martin had found a way to sit on the Gomery report while in minority? I know it was a public inquiry. But if he had not held one, or simply tried to avoid accountability the opposition would have taken action to find him in contempt. And rightly so.

        • Yup, alleged. The opposition shut down the government's attempt to provide the information and forced this fourth $300 million election in seven years. Everyone knows it was trumped-up, which is why nobody has talked about it during the campaign. It was partisan nonsense over costing of future programs, which all parties bash each other over the heads for.

          • no.

          • I love when Conbots talk about 4 elections in 7 yrs…does that mean Harper owes Cdns a rebate of 600M for the two elections when he told the GG to progue Parliament?

          • No, Gomer, it means we've had four $300 million elections in seven years. What is it about this simple claim that drives some of you nuts on here? lol.

  10. I wonder if this leak during the election could have the same effect as the false RCMP investigation into Goodale in the 2006 election.

    One can only hope.

    • Agreed. Liberal staffers really must stop releasing information when it's not appropriate to do so.

  11. I see conservative supporters are upset by the leak, and understandably so.

    If you thought the information leaked was correct, would it change your vote?

    I keep looking for game changers. Is this one?

  12. I see conservative supporters are upset by the leak, and understandably so.

    If you thought the information leaked was correct, would it change your vote?

    I keep looking for game changers. Is this one?

    • How can it be a game changer if even the AG said not to speculate until she officially releases her report? Man, you're a proud Harper hater, and it shows!

      • The RCMP investigation into Goodale's activities was a game changer, even though it hadn't been dealt with legally. It was a kind of straw that broke the camel's back, coming as it did on top of the adscam issues.

        I'm hoping that given all the crap spewing out of the government's a$$ that something will finally make voters go, oh yeah, they're criminals!

        You ever hear of a band wagon?

        Anyhoo, as usual, you didn't answer my question. Next!

        • I think it's desperate to compare the two situations. And how can I answer a question that asks me to speculate about a report that is yet to be released? I'm following the AG's advice. You?

          • We know a very respected public official at one point alleged criminality. That may have changed. it very well may not.

          • A draft report is not an allegation. In fact, the "very respected public official" you're talking about is telling us all to stop speculating until she tables the report. Are you going to listen to her? I think I will.

          • Ryan Sparrow implies he has seen it.

          • Yeah and according to kady omalley, he most emphatically should NOT have. (the NOT was an homage to Bev Oda).

          • and the Canadian Press has seen it, too. And the rest of the world now.

          • I think the two situations sound quite comparable. Allegations concerning investigations into questionable government activity come to light during an election campaign, but for differing reasons, definitive information on the veracity of the allegations can not/will not be available until later.

            Can voters forget that these investigations/reports may exist?

            Is there any kind of revelation that might dissuade you from voting Conservative?

      • Don't be naive Dennis. The other parties will speculate regardless; as would Harper if he was in their position. At best this is some cover for Harper. Voters are free to draw their own conclusions. If they're smart the other parties will attempt to make some hay out of this.
        Did Harper refuse to speculate on the mounties leak, the one that was found to be groundless, the one that helped him win in 06? Like hell he did. That was only at the inquiry stage as i remember.

        • Oh, I'm sure the opposition will keep trying to throw mud like they have been for some time now. But the AG said not to speculate, so there it is. Sorry.

  13. I also suppose I won't be the only one pointing out the irony that the report would have been officially released by now if it were not for an election forced by the opposition on the basis of alleged Parliamentary abuse. Ain't irony a kick in the head?

  14. LOL Sheila Fraser neatly steps out of the line of fire by doing her duty, and the original report stands.

    Nicely done Ms Fraser.

  15. How can it be a game changer if even the AG said not to speculate until she officially releases her report? Man, you're a proud Harper hater, and it shows!

  16. LOL Sheila Fraser neatly steps out of the line of fire by doing her duty, and the original report stands.

    Nicely done Ms Fraser.

    • What original report stands? She says no report stands until it is released after the election. Wow, another desperate attack line falls by the wayside, doesn't it.

      • I know you're trying to help the cover-up Dennis….but the report still stands.

        I'm afraid it will continue to be discussed all through the campaign.

  17. Sheila Fraser is an honourable person and it appears the leak did not happen in her office but in another gov`t dept.

    Most civil servants are honourable but I guess it should come as no surprise that a there still a few left over who believe they can rationalize their dishonesty and dirty tricks because they believe their view of who should be in power is the view of the Canadian public.

  18. Sheila Fraser is an honourable person and it appears the leak did not happen in her office but in another gov`t dept.

    Most civil servants are honourable but I guess it should come as no surprise that a there still a few left over who believe they can rationalize their dishonesty and dirty tricks because they believe their view of who should be in power is the view of the Canadian public.

    • Maybe their bosses treat them badly. So they take revenge. $hit happens, right?

      • I expect a little more professionalism from civil servants—You seem to think that if a government treats them nicely they will go along with their dirty tricks—-that didn`t turn out too well for the gov`t in power 10-12 years ago.

        • So instead Harper treats them like crap, firing the ones who do their jobs honestly.

    • so focused on malice, don't forget incompetence BLue. documents get leaked all the time due to insufficient or unrespected handling procedures… As a head of security told me in an orientation session once long long ago: "there are reporters going through the dumpsters as we speak looking for sensitive documents." jerk that I am, I wondered why he was talking to us instead of trying to stop them.

      • I am truly shocked that you would infer that there could be any incompetency in Ottawa.

      • Yeah, like that poor innocent soul from Kelly Block's office who sent the pre-budget consultations to lobbyists. Just an innocent mistake.

    • Right, let's drag em out of there in handcuffs like they did with that poor sap in the environment ministry. It was wrong. But your handwringing and plea for non partisanship is likely bogus.

      • If an employee of the government hijacked a report that was to be released by Parliament whether through incompetence or malice, then Parliament should charge that individual.
        If you were sincere in your stated respect for Parliament the past year or so, then I don`t know how you can disagree with me.

        • Same goes for a Conservative Party like Monsieur Vallee who told the French Press that the final version was different from the draft. How would he know?

          • Yeah, I expect there will be lots of speculation the next few days. It`s a mess—like a high school rumour. It should never have been released until Parliament said it should be released in full.

            By the way, Joel-Denis from La Presse came dangerously close to groping Ignatieff this morning on the streets of Kingston in his excitement about getting a quote about this mess.

          • Oo, that's hot. Thanks.

          • Where shall the bailiff serve you the papers for the irreparable damage done to my evening because of that visual?

          • Hey, I`m just the messenger—I just happened to be walking by the TV and there it was –happening.

          • They shoot messengers, don't they?

  19. Agreed. Best she can do in the horrible situation she's been placed in.

  20. The RCMP investigation into Goodale's activities was a game changer, even though it hadn't been dealt with legally. It was a kind of straw that broke the camel's back, coming as it did on top of the adscam issues.

    I'm hoping that given all the crap spewing out of the government's a$$ that something will finally make voters go, oh yeah, they're criminals!

    You ever hear of a band wagon?

    Anyhoo, as usual, you didn't answer my question. Next!

  21. What original report stands? She says no report stands until it is released after the election. Wow, another desperate attack line falls by the wayside, doesn't it.

  22. Maybe their bosses treat them badly. So they take revenge. $hit happens, right?

  23. Somebody should check on Tony Clement – he hasn't tweeted in 5 hours.

  24. I know you're trying to help the cover-up Dennis….but the report still stands.

    I'm afraid it will continue to be discussed all through the campaign.

  25. Somebody should check on Tony Clement – he hasn't tweeted in 5 hours.

    • Probably hiding under one of his many gazebos.

      • Digging up those permament Vote Tony plaques around his riding?

        • Digging them up? If this looks good on anyone, it's Tony Clement, as long as he stays in his riding. "Fifty million bucks! Nobody but Tony brings home that much bacon!"

    • Haha, I noticed that too! The usually loquacious tweeter is suddenly gone tweetless. I guess that makes him a twit?

      • That greasy crook better find a country with no extradition treaty.

  26. I think it's desperate to compare the two situations. And how can I answer a question that asks me to speculate about a report that is yet to be released? I'm following the AG's advice. You?

  27. Is Maclean's going to change all thier headlines now? That's what I need to know…

  28. Boilerplate – that's what would be said either way.

    That being said, if there's a change in the final report, the Canadian public will deserve to know why. if the final report is even differently, It may very well be that the CPC was able to later show it acted appropriately. but given this government's history, that hardly seems likely.

  29. "Read between the lines that the final report is not a verbatim of the draft report."

    The statement doesn't say that at all, that's just what you want to think.

    Basically, the statement says that only the final report represents the AG's findings and conclusions and this can not be released until parliament is in session.

    We can't deduce anything about the relationship between the draft and final versions.

    Which is most unfortunate.

  30. Is Maclean's going to change all thier headlines now? That's what I need to know…

  31. Boilerplate – that's what would be said either way.

    That being said, if there's a change in the final report, the Canadian public will deserve to know why. if the final report is even differently, It may very well be that the CPC was able to later show it acted appropriately. but given this government's history, that hardly seems likely.

  32. So, you're now saying the AG is lying, and that she's covering up to boot. Keep it coming. Keep it coming.

  33. Please, please no speculating! Unless it's about a hypothetical coalition while the Conservatives remain 10pts ahead of the Liberals and 40% in the polls.

    Seriously, I wonder what are the chances that the Conservatives misled Parliament on G8 spending? I vaguely remember why this government fell in the first place… but that was oh so long ago.

  34. But she doesn't say the draft is seriously at odds with the final document. Possibly she cannot hint at even that. But i would have expected her to issue a strong denial if that were the case, since we are in an election. Perhaps she did hint at that when she says people should wait for the final document. It is all a little strange.

  35. The fact that the government fell on hiding financial information doesn't look to good right now, does it?

  36. Please, please no speculating! Unless it's about a hypothetical coalition while the Conservatives remain 10pts ahead of the Liberals and 40% in the polls.

    Seriously, I wonder what are the chances that the Conservatives misled Parliament on G8 spending? I vaguely remember why this government fell in the first place… but that was oh so long ago.

    • Excellent points.

    • Contempt!

  37. Conservative supporters better hope for one or two things. 1) That the final report does not corroborate the leaked draft report and 2) That they get a majority. Because if 1) doesn't pan out — and we find out that the government misled and misspent on the summit — they're going to need a majority if they want to govern for very long (and I'm not talking about any coalition shennanigans). My guess is that an ensuing election would not go very well for them. It'd be a case of misleading, misspending, compounded by more misleading.

    That said, I am glad the AG has put forward as much information she can to caution voters from jumping to conclusions.

  38. We know a very respected public official at one point alleged criminality. That may have changed. it very well may not.

  39. Conservative supporters better hope for one or two things. 1) That the final report does not corroborate the leaked draft report and 2) That they get a majority. Because if 1) doesn't pan out — and we find out that the government misled and misspent on the summit — they're going to need a majority if they want to govern for very long (and I'm not talking about any coalition shennanigans). My guess is that an ensuing election would not go very well for them. It'd be a case of misleading, misspending, compounded by more misleading.

    That said, I am glad the AG has put forward as much information she can to caution voters from jumping to conclusions.

    • Conservative candidate John Baird, who served as transport minister and later government House leader, told reporters on Monday that statements such as "Parliament was misinformed" do not appear in a later draft of the auditor general's report, which he said he had seen.

      Baird said "it's common" for versions of reports to be changed substantially.

      "I told you what was not in the report. I don't have the authority to release subsequent drafts. I haven't seen the final draft," Baird said.

      "We are very comfortable to ask for the report to be made public so people can come to their own conclusions and their own judgments. I think that is being open. I think that is being incredibly transparent."

      • OK… but it only compounds my point. That final report better sing a substantially different tune than the draft report or else these statements are going to make Baird look like a fool, and the Conservatives look dishonest and unprincipled. Like I said… if the draft report turns out to be accurate, or even substantially accurate… the Conservatives better hope they have a majority to insulate them from voters.

        • BOTH sides are being jerks over this now, because both sides know full well that they can chirp about transparency all they like. Ms. Fraser will not release a semi-colon of that document until she is legally entitled to.

          • Agreed.

        • I gotta disagree. I think if the final report is even slightly altered from whatever was released today, all of todays criticisms will ring hallow, and any actual finding of wrong-doing will be glossed over by accusations of Liberal/Media dirty tricks relating to the draft release. In short, if they can't nail the CPC to the wall with this draft report (which is clearly more strongly worded than the final report will be), they won't be get them on a second turn.

          • I applaud your creativity.

      • From the Globe:

        "The report notes that similar legacy funds have been set up in the past, but the amounts allocated were much smaller. For instance, Quebec City got $4.5-million to host the Summit of the Americas in 2001. And Alberta's Kananaskis region got $5-million to host the G8 in 2001."

        The legacy fund in this case was $50 million. I'm not jumping to conclusions, but I am very, very much looking for the government's explanation of this (and the AG's final findings, of course).

      • Why does Mr Baird have a copy of the report that has not been released to Parliament?

        • Because he's the minister responsible. They always get an advance copy of AG reports, usually a few weeks before they're released. Ralph Goodale was walking around with the Sponsorship audit for months before it came out, thanks to Chretien's proroguing of Parliament in Nov '03.

          • That makes sense- thanks to you both, herring and Loraine.

    • Yet expect voters to jump to conclusions.

    • Conversely, if the final report squares with Baird's characterization, and the opposition decides to take down a minority government in a fit of pique anyway, who do you think will get the heaviest blame from the electorate for corrupt partisan game-playing?

      • The opposition, and rightly so. It does work both ways.

      • It would indeed seem silly that an opposition would take down a government solely over a report which was later found not to square with the final draft.

        So silly I think there would be no reason to bring it up, in fact.

  40. How on earth could the opposition release the draft, maliciously or otherwise? They never had it to begin with.

  41. Nobody remembers those trumped-up charges, and the AG just gave the government all the cover they need. Another swing-and-a-miss by our lovable but oh-so-inept Canadian opposition parties.

  42. Don't jump to conclusions. Ryan Sparrow unelected unofficial nobody working in the Conservative Party war room has a copy of the final draft according to WK. It's done. The PM has it.

  43. I expect a little more professionalism from civil servants—You seem to think that if a government treats them nicely they will go along with their dirty tricks—-that didn`t turn out too well for the gov`t in power 10-12 years ago.

  44. A draft report is not an allegation. In fact, the "very respected public official" you're talking about is telling us all to stop speculating until she tables the report. Are you going to listen to her? I think I will.

  45. Probably hiding under one of his many gazebos.

  46. Actually you are.

    You're saying she called Harper a liar, and said he did something illegal in the draft report, but that she intends to whitewash the final report before it goes to parliament.

    See….you're not helping your side.

  47. Actually you are.

    You're saying she called Harper a liar, and said he did something illegal in the draft report, but that she intends to whitewash the final report before it goes to parliament.

    See….you're not helping your side.

  48. It is, in fact, far far more than an allegation.

  49. Alleged?…whether you like it or not the opposition are the majority while there's a minority parliament. The govt WAS found in contempt. Would you have been happy if Martin had found a way to sit on the Gomery report while in minority? I know it was a public inquiry. But if he had not held one, or simply tried to avoid accountability the opposition would have taken action to find him in contempt. And rightly so.

  50. Ryan Sparrow implies he has seen it.

  51. I think the two situations sound quite comparable. Allegations concerning investigations into questionable government activity come to light during an election campaign, but for differing reasons, definitive information on the veracity of the allegations can not/will not be available until later.

    Can voters forget that these investigations/reports may exist?

    Is there any kind of revelation that might dissuade you from voting Conservative?

  52. so focused on malice, don't forget incompetence BLue. documents get leaked all the time due to insufficient or unrespected handling procedures… As a head of security told me in an orientation session once long long ago: "there are reporters going through the dumpsters as we speak looking for sensitive documents." jerk that I am, I wondered why he was talking to us instead of trying to stop them.

  53. Names please investigative reporters.

    "A chapter of a Jan. 13 draft report, seen by the news agency, said Auditor General Sheila Fraser suggests the process may have been illegal. The Canadian Press said the draft was obtained by a supporter of an opposition party."

  54. Names please investigative reporters.

    "A chapter of a Jan. 13 draft report, seen by the news agency, said Auditor General Sheila Fraser suggests the process may have been illegal. The Canadian Press said the draft was obtained by a supporter of an opposition party."

    • We don't get names in this country any more. Even when reports attend press conferences given by officials by the PMO they speak only on condition of anonimity. Where have you been these past five years?

    • Agreed. Protecting the source of this is yet another sign of partisan media corruption. Or, maybe, pundits just enjoy being played like fiddles by the Liberal war room; who can say?

      • This comment was deleted.

        • I only want the leaker fired, for intentionally breaching their professional obligations of trust and confidentiality. That's cause, even for civil servants.

          (And no, no KGB-style TLC required.)

    • I'm looking squarely at Warren Kinsella's corner of the internet. This has all the makings of Wafer-Gate all over again.

      • Except for the, y'know, illegality.

  55. Y'know, I'm not a supporter of any particular party, but if I were I hope I would not gloat about the likelihood of them being able to hide atrocious behaviour and having good cover. "YAY! look what we got away with!" doesn't do it ofr me.

  56. Yeah and according to kady omalley, he most emphatically should NOT have. (the NOT was an homage to Bev Oda).

  57. Excellent points.

  58. The method of calculating the cost of the G8/G20 summit is somewhat dubious. Police officers salaries are rolled into the costs even though they would be paid regardless of the summit. I suppose the cities and police departments participating received the benefit of this funded police action. I just considered it a perk to the city hosting the event and did not line any politicians pockets that I am aware. Additionally, the city of Toronto gained a lot of permanent surveillance cameras, and other infrastructure that will benefit that city for a long time. Yes there will always be some boondoggle scheme that will rise to the top and be used by the media to drum the waste of taxpayers money. I can only say that the projects I have seen were all meant to be of benefit to the "public" at large. This is unlike other Liberal spending on a "private" Golf Course in Chretien's riding not so many years ago. And this money is still not returned to the taxpayers of Canada. I do hope the full report comes out because the innuendo is all speculative.

    Can we argue that there were vandals in the demonstrators with pick axes to smash windows. If our police did not react to them, I would be more concerned.

  59. This comment was deleted.

    • LOL you guys are so rattled you have to caution each other to keep quiet now!

      • This comment was deleted.

        • Ahhh Con sexism….perfect!

          See, I said you were rattled, and you immediately prove it.

          • What sexism? You're acting like a petulant six-year-old child, so I'm treating you like one. Gender doesn't enter into it.

          • Sexist AND patronizing….one again proving you're a Con….and rattled. LOL

    • a) I decide what I post and what I don't post on here.

      b) I had no plans to follow-up on her last reply because it was so silly. The AG provided the Tories the cover they needed, and the Harper bashers are stuck holding the bag once again.

  60. The method of calculating the cost of the G8/G20 summit is somewhat dubious. Police officers salaries are rolled into the costs even though they would be paid regardless of the summit. I suppose the cities and police departments participating received the benefit of this funded police action. I just considered it a perk to the city hosting the event and did not line any politicians pockets that I am aware. Additionally, the city of Toronto gained a lot of permanent surveillance cameras, and other infrastructure that will benefit that city for a long time. Yes there will always be some boondoggle scheme that will rise to the top and be used by the media to drum the waste of taxpayers money. I can only say that the projects I have seen were all meant to be of benefit to the "public" at large. This is unlike other Liberal spending on a "private" Golf Course in Chretien's riding not so many years ago. And this money is still not returned to the taxpayers of Canada. I do hope the full report comes out because the innuendo is all speculative.

    Can we argue that there were vandals in the demonstrators with pick axes to smash windows. If our police did not react to them, I would be more concerned.

    • I thought I read that a great deal of money was spent on paving the Deerhurst resort driveway. Not exactly a project to benefit the public at large. Apparently the place was put up for sale just after the big event.

    • Oh come on, some of the improvements in Clement's riding don't pass the giggle test.

    • Police officers salaries are rolled into the costs even though they would be paid regardless of the summit.

      The overtime sends expenses through the budgetary roof. The Muskoka hotel bills, likewise.

    • "Can we argue that there were vandals in the demonstrators with pick axes to smash windows. If our police did not react to them, I would be more concerned. "
      Well Geraldine, you have highlighted the absurdity here.
      The vandals were allowed to rampage freely – this provided the much needed video footage meant to justify the boondoggle. (The much replayed vandalism was about the equivalent of a Montreal or Vancouver hockey riot.)
      Meanwhile 1000+ law abiding Canadians were arrested and treated worse than dogs.
      So sorry, but no, you cannot argue that.

  61. Really. What is it? A stripper popping out of a cake? lol. Give your heads a shake.

  62. and the Canadian Press has seen it, too. And the rest of the world now.

  63. Haha, I noticed that too! The usually loquacious tweeter is suddenly gone tweetless. I guess that makes him a twit?

  64. Conservative candidate John Baird, who served as transport minister and later government House leader, told reporters on Monday that statements such as "Parliament was misinformed" do not appear in a later draft of the auditor general's report, which he said he had seen.

    Baird said "it's common" for versions of reports to be changed substantially.

    "I told you what was not in the report. I don't have the authority to release subsequent drafts. I haven't seen the final draft," Baird said.

    "We are very comfortable to ask for the report to be made public so people can come to their own conclusions and their own judgments. I think that is being open. I think that is being incredibly transparent."

  65. Really. What is it? A stripper popping out of a cake? lol. Give your heads a shake.

    • Wrong thread, Dennis; the strippers in cake are over at the Harper Hired Carson thread.

  66. LOL you guys are so rattled you have to caution each other to keep quiet now!

  67. Contempt!

  68. Yet expect voters to jump to conclusions.

  69. But i would have expected her to issue a strong denial if that were the case

    Why? It's not appropriate for the AG to confirm or deny anything until the final report is released. It's too bad that a draft was illegally leaked in the first place.

  70. Don't be naive Dennis. The other parties will speculate regardless; as would Harper if he was in their position. At best this is some cover for Harper. Voters are free to draw their own conclusions. If they're smart the other parties will attempt to make some hay out of this.
    Did Harper refuse to speculate on the mounties leak, the one that was found to be groundless, the one that helped him win in 06? Like hell he did. That was only at the inquiry stage as i remember.

  71. Let's say for the sake of argument that the final report is different –

    If that were the case, there are presumably reasons why the change was made from the draft to final version.

    What prevents someone who is not the auditor general from supplying the information that caused the change to this report?

    If the AG was pursuaded to amend the report, there must be facts that can refute the earlier conclusion. Let's see those facts.

  72. The underlying trust that voters have of this current government is far higher than it was for the Liberals in 2006. Again, it's just one knee-jerk accusation and lofty fear-mongering after another. It's why I think Canadians will vote to put an end to it and give Harper a stable Conservative majority for the next four years.

  73. Let's say for the sake of argument that the final report is different –

    If that were the case, there are presumably reasons why the change was made from the draft to final version.

    What prevents someone who is not the auditor general from supplying the information that caused the change to this report?

    If the AG was pursuaded to amend the report, there must be facts that can refute the earlier conclusion. Let's see those facts.

    • Remember further that the reason the draft might not be any different from the final draft. It is possible that this was leaked because it was all the information the particular source had.

      • Hence 'for the sake of argument'.

  74. I am truly shocked that you would infer that there could be any incompetency in Ottawa.

  75. Right, let's drag em out of there in handcuffs like they did with that poor sap in the environment ministry. It was wrong. But your handwringing and plea for non partisanship is likely bogus.

  76. "We knew that they wasted $1.2 billion on a G8/G20 summit. We knew that they have been spraying money around like drunken sailors in Tony Clement's riding. What we didn't know is that they lied to Parliament. What we didn't know is they may have broken the law.
    "This is not me telling you this. This is the Auditor General of Canada, Sheila Fraser, a respected public servant," Ignatieff told reporters in Ottawa Monday.
    http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canadavotes2011/s

    That's a pretty pathetic abuse of the AG's neutrality, sir. You owe Ms. Fraser an apology.

  77. Yup, alleged. The opposition shut down the government's attempt to provide the information and forced this fourth $300 million election in seven years. Everyone knows it was trumped-up, which is why nobody has talked about it during the campaign. It was partisan nonsense over costing of future programs, which all parties bash each other over the heads for.

  78. "We knew that they wasted $1.2 billion on a G8/G20 summit. We knew that they have been spraying money around like drunken sailors in Tony Clement's riding. What we didn't know is that they lied to Parliament. What we didn't know is they may have broken the law.
    "This is not me telling you this. This is the Auditor General of Canada, Sheila Fraser, a respected public servant," Ignatieff told reporters in Ottawa Monday.
    http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canadavotes2011/s

    That's a pretty pathetic abuse of the AG's neutrality, sir. You owe Ms. Fraser an apology.

    • It was said at one time. The auditor may not comment if now something different is being said.

      Nice try.

      • Ignatieff's quote is TODAY. And the AG may not now comment. My charge stands.

        • I'm sorry you think so.

          • There, there, Mike, don't be sorry. It's not your fault that I condemn Ignatieff for wrongly attributing words to someone currently incapable of denying the scurrilous misquote delivered for partisan gain.

            It is I who is sorry that I have failed to adequately highlight this simple obvious case of common sense for you to understand it fully. You were even kind enough to compliment the attempt, and yet I have failed to make it clear enough for you. I should try harder next time.

    • …..agreed. This continues with the Liberal Backroom Style evident the past few years.
      There has been many instances of the Liberal Party using extreme rhetoric long before the real facts come out.
      I don`t know why they insist on doing this—it is almost like Lib-Blogs are running the Party.

      • There seems to be a group effort to spin this as Harper refusing to release the final report even though they know Fraser cannot according to current rules.

        "Layton and Ignatieff both want the full report released before Tuesday night's debate.

        Duceppe told reporters Monday he also wants the report released before the leaders' debate on Tuesday.

        "We need to know exactly what happened before the debates," Duceppe said.

        "It is unacceptable, we want clarity on this. Mr. Harper must show transparency on this."

    • Are you surprised? He tried to turn Michaelle Jean into a political pinata last year.

      • Wow, this scandal just got a new leg!

      • Yes, indeed it does.

    • That's a pretty pathetic abuse of the AG's neutrality, sir. You owe Ms. Fraser an apology.
      I'm looking forward to your comment on the Conservative behaviour.

      Auditor General Sheila Fraser has written a scathing letter rebuking the Conservatives for misquoting her in a parliamentary report on the costs of the G8/G20 summits in Toronto last summer.

      • A) Then you might like to see my reply to ajb, just above you..

        B) At least the AG is in a position to respond to that one, unlike the G8-G20 mess into which she has been thrown.

  79. Yes they did. From the CP story:

    However, a Jan. 13 draft of the chapter on the G8 legacy infrastructure fund was obtained by a supporter of an opposition party and shown to The Canadian Press.

  80. I thought I read that a great deal of money was spent on paving the Deerhurst resort driveway. Not exactly a project to benefit the public at large. Apparently the place was put up for sale just after the big event.

  81. We don't get names in this country any more. Even when reports attend press conferences given by officials by the PMO they speak only on condition of anonimity. Where have you been these past five years?

  82. Well, some voters trust the current government more than the previous liberal government.

    But some voters will hold an opposite view. For sure, this unfortunate leak (and I do mean that) will only confirm them in their opinion.
    Is it not possible though, that it might give some other voters, ones who were considering voting Conservative, if only to end minority government, pause for thought?

  83. Oh come on, some of the improvements in Clement's riding don't pass the giggle test.

  84. Well, some voters trust the current government more than the previous liberal government.

    But some voters will hold an opposite view. For sure, this unfortunate leak (and I do mean that) will only confirm them in their opinion.
    Is it not possible though, that it might give some other voters, ones who were considering voting Conservative, if only to end minority government, pause for thought?

    • Oh, I have no doubt it will keep feeding the Harper haters. Just read these boards. But this isn't a repeat of anything. Suggesting such is just more wishful thinking on the part of a hapless opposition, I'm afraid.

  85. "…suggests that departments provide facts but do not have a say in her final conclusions."

    Right, except for the part where she says:
    "Sometimes during the process of fact validation, additional information is brought to our attention. Only the final report that is tabled in Parliament represents our audit findings and conclusions."

  86. This is just saying "We can't comment" and explaining why they can't.

  87. Wrong thread, Dennis; the strippers in cake are over at the Harper Hired Carson thread.

  88. a) I decide what I post and what I don't post on here.

    b) I had no plans to follow-up on her last reply because it was so silly. The AG provided the Tories the cover they needed, and the Harper bashers are stuck holding the bag once again.

  89. So an incompete draft that may even be opposite to the final copy (depending on how preliminary it was, whether more information refuted the first draft),

    one in which the auditor general herself says not to follow,

    is presented by the media as the "Auditor General's findings".

    When is it proper to run with obviously incomplete, and potentially erroneos facts which the purveyor herself disavows story, based as "fact"?

    Why, when it's a "gotcha" moment against Harper.

    It's pretty clear the media is willing to throw away all journalistic integrity to put in the party they (not the public) considers the "correct" party.

    The epic scandal of a generation to be sure.

  90. So an incompete draft that may even be opposite to the final copy (depending on how preliminary it was, whether more information refuted the first draft),

    one in which the auditor general herself says not to follow,

    is presented by the media as the "Auditor General's findings".

    When is it proper to run with obviously incomplete, and potentially erroneos facts which the purveyor herself disavows story, based as "fact"?

    Why, when it's a "gotcha" moment against Harper.

    It's pretty clear the media is willing to throw away all journalistic integrity to put in the party they (not the public) considers the "correct" party.

    The epic scandal of a generation to be sure.

    • she has not disavowed the information released.

      it is best treated as "no comment."

    • Good afternoon, chet. Have you been in tied up in damage control meetings all morning? And still nothing new to offer.

  91. no.

  92. Oh, I'm sure the opposition will keep trying to throw mud like they have been for some time now. But the AG said not to speculate, so there it is. Sorry.

  93. Conversely, if the final report squares with Baird's characterization, and the opposition decides to take down a minority government in a fit of pique anyway, who do you think will get the heaviest blame from the electorate for corrupt partisan game-playing?

  94. No way, kcm.

    You are taking logic back to grade six where, in the attempt to figure out who Jeremy has a crush on… Is it Lisa? "No." Is it Caroline? "No." Is it Julia? "Oh, gross, no way!" Is it Pam? "No." Cathy? "No." Helen? "I'm not telling!"

    Jeremy and Helen, sitting in a tree…

    Grown adults who work according to the laws governing their duties don't work that way, where denials are denials, and no-comments are confirmations. And your expectation above does a disservice to her office.

  95. Yeah, like that poor innocent soul from Kelly Block's office who sent the pre-budget consultations to lobbyists. Just an innocent mistake.

  96. "Most civil servants are honourable".

    Hard to say. Most civil servants are pro big government, and tend to lean left.

    Spend some time in any government department and hear the Harper bashing frenzy.

    The real scandal here is a completely biased media,

    and a partisan bureaucracy willing to abuse its position (and apparently breach the law) in order to "get" the party they oppose out of power.

    Chances of the media reporting it as such?

    The probability ranges on that from about 0% to about……0%.

  97. Oh, I have no doubt it will keep feeding the Harper haters. Just read these boards. But this isn't a repeat of anything. Suggesting such is just more wishful thinking on the part of a hapless opposition, I'm afraid.

  98. If an employee of the government hijacked a report that was to be released by Parliament whether through incompetence or malice, then Parliament should charge that individual.
    If you were sincere in your stated respect for Parliament the past year or so, then I don`t know how you can disagree with me.

  99. "Most civil servants are honourable".

    Hard to say. Most civil servants are pro big government, and tend to lean left.

    Spend some time in any government department and hear the Harper bashing frenzy.

    The real scandal here is a completely biased media,

    and a partisan bureaucracy willing to abuse its position (and apparently breach the law) in order to "get" the party they oppose out of power.

    Chances of the media reporting it as such?

    The probability ranges on that from about 0% to about……0%.

    • Aren't you always talking about how far you are from the Ottawa bubble? how much time have you spent in government departments Chet?

    • "a partisan bureaucracy willing to abuse its position (and apparently breach the law) in order to "get" the party they oppose out of power."

      If the draft report doesn't jibe with the final report, I fully expect this to be a big story, as it should be. And, to a certain extent, it has, if comments on these boards are any indication.

      The story is only a few hours old yet. Not everyone in the media have had their chance to weigh in.

    • 'Most civil servants are pro big government, and tend to lean left.'

      That's quite a generalization, but anyway… are you saying someone with left-leaning sensibilities is not honourable? Most? Many? Majority?

      • No. There's a widespread motivation to act against Harper's interests.

        The vast majority of those who are so motivated will not choose to break the rules to get Harper. A small number may. It only takes one or two to leak such a document. This isn't rocket science.

        • 'Most civil servants are honourable' you quote.
          "Hard to say," you reply to said quote, thereby calling into question whether or not most civil servants are honourable. Then you point out that they are left-leaning.

          Glad you clarified.

  100. OK… but it only compounds my point. That final report better sing a substantially different tune than the draft report or else these statements are going to make Baird look like a fool, and the Conservatives look dishonest and unprincipled. Like I said… if the draft report turns out to be accurate, or even substantially accurate… the Conservatives better hope they have a majority to insulate them from voters.

  101. Agreed. Protecting the source of this is yet another sign of partisan media corruption. Or, maybe, pundits just enjoy being played like fiddles by the Liberal war room; who can say?

  102. Remember further that the reason the draft might not be any different from the final draft. It is possible that this was leaked because it was all the information the particular source had.

  103. Dennis of course, is an impartial observer.

  104. It was said at one time. The auditor may not comment if now something different is being said.

    Nice try.

  105. BOTH sides are being jerks over this now, because both sides know full well that they can chirp about transparency all they like. Ms. Fraser will not release a semi-colon of that document until she is legally entitled to.

  106. …..agreed. This continues with the Liberal Backroom Style evident the past few years.
    There has been many instances of the Liberal Party using extreme rhetoric long before the real facts come out.
    I don`t know why they insist on doing this—it is almost like Lib-Blogs are running the Party.

  107. Aren't you always talking about how far you are from the Ottawa bubble? how much time have you spent in government departments Chet?

  108. And you may be engaged on your own wishful thinking!

    Me, I've no idea.

  109. she has not disavowed the information released.

    it is best treated as "no comment."

  110. The opposition, and rightly so. It does work both ways.

  111. You know, it's funny how people on here — usually from the left — come pretending to be impartial and non-partisan. Clearly, you have some idea, and have expressed so in your posts. Why pretend otherwise? Who are you trying to fool?

  112. You know, it's funny how people on here — usually from the left — come pretending to be impartial and non-partisan. Clearly, you have some idea, and have expressed so in your posts. Why pretend otherwise? Who are you trying to fool?

    • I have no idea about the how this leak will affect voter intention.

      That is all I meant.

      Despite your previous comments, I suspect you don't know either.

      I think this leak (like the one from the RCMP in 2006) is unfortunate, since incomplete/inaccurate information may unduly influence this election. Which is surely bad, right?

      You appear to discount any effect from the leak, because (i think) you want the Conservatives to win and believe most Canadian's share you view.

      I'll admit that I hope that we do not end up with another Conservative government (in the short-term at least), but surely that is irrelevant to the question whether the draft AG report will affect voter intention?

      • I appear to discount any effect from the leak because it's nothing new. It's been one trumped-up allegation from the opposition after another, and it's been happening for quite some time now.

        The 2006 RCMP leak has been widely misinterpreted, usually by Liberals who refuse to accept responsibility for their own demise. That story simply entrenched already held views about a government that had scandals written all over it for over a decade.

        I'm sure Canadians will eventually have that view of this current Conservative government, as they do all long-serving governments in Canada. But we're a long way from there, in my opinion, despite these ongoing and desperate attempts by the opposition and some in the media.

  113. Ahhh Con sexism….perfect!

    See, I said you were rattled, and you immediately prove it.

  114. There seems to be a group effort to spin this as Harper refusing to release the final report even though they know Fraser cannot according to current rules.

    "Layton and Ignatieff both want the full report released before Tuesday night's debate.

    Duceppe told reporters Monday he also wants the report released before the leaders' debate on Tuesday.

    "We need to know exactly what happened before the debates," Duceppe said.

    "It is unacceptable, we want clarity on this. Mr. Harper must show transparency on this."

  115. So how did Baird get to see a copy of the draft audit report? Aren't reviews and comments on report contents restricted to the bureaucrats in the department(s) being audited? Something fishy here?

  116. "It's too bad that a draft was illegally leaked in the first place. "
    oh ya, agonized lament from coast to coast
    the worm is turning, he he

  117. From the Globe:

    "The report notes that similar legacy funds have been set up in the past, but the amounts allocated were much smaller. For instance, Quebec City got $4.5-million to host the Summit of the Americas in 2001. And Alberta's Kananaskis region got $5-million to host the G8 in 2001."

    The legacy fund in this case was $50 million. I'm not jumping to conclusions, but I am very, very much looking for the government's explanation of this (and the AG's final findings, of course).

  118. So how did Baird get to see a copy of the draft audit report? Aren't reviews and comments on report contents restricted to the bureaucrats in the department(s) being audited? Something fishy here?

  119. Digging up those permament Vote Tony plaques around his riding?

  120. Agreed.

  121. Good afternoon, chet. Have you been in tied up in damage control meetings all morning? And still nothing new to offer.

  122. So of course she could also be responding to Baird's BS about a draft he claims to have seen.

  123. So of course she could also be responding to Baird's BS about a draft he claims to have seen.

    • Yep, actually that makes total sense. We've figured it out everyone. She's obviously contradicting Baird, that Con son of b!*ch, and confirming the report that was leaked. It's all so clear!

  124. If Harper and crew are exonerated in the final report, the conservatives would leak it ASAP as proof….oops I mean it would mysteriously get leaked by unknown individuals :). Don't you think Harper would make sure of this, especially during a election campaign? If nothing positive gets "leaked" it's probably because there is nothing clearing them in the final report.

  125. Ooooh, a Liberal blogger says the government is "stuck." Film at 11. lol. Next.

  126. What sexism? You're acting like a petulant six-year-old child, so I'm treating you like one. Gender doesn't enter into it.

  127. "a partisan bureaucracy willing to abuse its position (and apparently breach the law) in order to "get" the party they oppose out of power."

    If the draft report doesn't jibe with the final report, I fully expect this to be a big story, as it should be. And, to a certain extent, it has, if comments on these boards are any indication.

    The story is only a few hours old yet. Not everyone in the media have had their chance to weigh in.

  128. Lets see, a small sample of Harper behavior:
    * Gov't issues sabotage-plan for parliamentary committees
    * Gov't spends tax $ to promote the ruling party
    * Gov't prorogues to avoid detainee exposure
    * Gov't found in contempt for hiding the true costs of F35
    So the leaked spanking from the AG sounds very authentic.

    But just as bad … the Gov't side quotes from the final report to defend themselves … the report we can't see… does anyone else notice the stench?

  129. So instead Harper treats them like crap, firing the ones who do their jobs honestly.

  130. Police officers salaries are rolled into the costs even though they would be paid regardless of the summit.

    The overtime sends expenses through the budgetary roof. The Muskoka hotel bills, likewise.

  131. 'Most civil servants are pro big government, and tend to lean left.'

    That's quite a generalization, but anyway… are you saying someone with left-leaning sensibilities is not honourable? Most? Many? Majority?

  132. Lets see, a small sample of Harper behavior:
    * Gov't issues sabotage-plan for parliamentary committees
    * Gov't spends tax $ to promote the ruling party
    * Gov't prorogues to avoid detainee exposure
    * Gov't found in contempt for hiding the true costs of F35
    So the leaked spanking from the AG sounds very authentic.

    But just as bad … the Gov't side quotes from the final report to defend themselves … the report we can't see… does anyone else notice the stench?

    • In French press, it was a Conservative Party spokesman, un Monsieur Vallée, who claimed that the final version was different from the draft. How could he know? More contempt of parliament?

  133. That greasy crook better find a country with no extradition treaty.

  134. No, I've been tied up reading the latest Nanos poll that puts the CPC eleven points ahead of the Liberals and in pretty firm majority territory.

    If that's "damage", then more please.

  135. Noted. No more speculating.

  136. Sexist AND patronizing….one again proving you're a Con….and rattled. LOL

  137. Why does Mr Baird have a copy of the report that has not been released to Parliament?

  138. "Can we argue that there were vandals in the demonstrators with pick axes to smash windows. If our police did not react to them, I would be more concerned. "
    Well Geraldine, you have highlighted the absurdity here.
    The vandals were allowed to rampage freely – this provided the much needed video footage meant to justify the boondoggle. (The much replayed vandalism was about the equivalent of a Montreal or Vancouver hockey riot.)
    Meanwhile 1000+ law abiding Canadians were arrested and treated worse than dogs.
    So sorry, but no, you cannot argue that.

  139. Hence 'for the sake of argument'.

  140. Digging them up? If this looks good on anyone, it's Tony Clement, as long as he stays in his riding. "Fifty million bucks! Nobody but Tony brings home that much bacon!"

  141. Ignatieff's quote is TODAY. And the AG may not now comment. My charge stands.

  142. In French press, it was a Conservative Party spokesman, un Monsieur Vallée, who claimed that the final version was different from the draft. How could he know? More contempt of parliament?

  143. You have clearly never worked on a report in draft form.

    Unless the author signs their name to the report (in this case Ms. Fraser) any inferences are just some staffers opinion.

  144. I have no idea about the how this leak will affect voter intention.

    That is all I meant.

    Despite your previous comments, I suspect you don't know either.

    I think this leak (like the one from the RCMP in 2006) is unfortunate, since incomplete/inaccurate information may unduly influence this election. Which is surely bad, right?

    You appear to discount any effect from the leak, because (i think) you want the Conservatives to win and believe most Canadian's share you view.

    I'll admit that I hope that we do not end up with another Conservative government (in the short-term at least), but surely that is irrelevant to the question whether the draft AG report will affect voter intention?

  145. Actually CP admits they received the draft from someone in another party.

    "A Jan. 13 draft chapter from the report dealing with the $50-million G8 Legacy Infrastructure Fund spending in Industry Minister Tony Clement's Parry Sound-Muskoka riding was leaked to the The Canadian Press by a supporter of an opposition party." <a href="http:// (http://tinyurl.com/5tmkbk7)” target=”_blank”> <a href="http://(http://tinyurl.com/5tmkbk7)” target=”_blank”>(http://tinyurl.com/5tmkbk7).

  146. Wow. For all your talk about how people avoid commenting on the substance of what you say, you dance pretty quickly there, kid.

  147. Actually CP admits they received the draft from someone in another party.

    "A Jan. 13 draft chapter from the report dealing with the $50-million G8 Legacy Infrastructure Fund spending in Industry Minister Tony Clement%E2%80%99s Parry Sound-Muskoka riding was leaked to the The Canadian Press by a supporter of an opposition party." <a href="http:// (http://tinyurl.com/5tmkbk7)” target=”_blank”> <a href="http://(http://tinyurl.com/5tmkbk7)” target=”_blank”>(http://tinyurl.com/5tmkbk7).

  148. Wow. For all your talk about how people avoid commenting on the substance of what you say, you dance pretty quickly there, kid.

    • As you specifically avoid talking about the substance of what I say in my post, or justify any substance that's supposed to exist in yours. lol. Too funny.

  149. "supporter" may be a key word here.

  150. I'm sorry you think so.

  151. Are you surprised? He tried to turn Michaelle Jean into a political pinata last year.

  152. No. There's a widespread motivation to act against Harper's interests.

    The vast majority of those who are so motivated will not choose to break the rules to get Harper. A small number may. It only takes one or two to leak such a document. This isn't rocket science.

  153. Same goes for a Conservative Party like Monsieur Vallee who told the French Press that the final version was different from the draft. How would he know?

  154. 'Most civil servants are honourable' you quote.
    "Hard to say," you reply to said quote, thereby calling into question whether or not most civil servants are honourable. Then you point out that they are left-leaning.

    Glad you clarified.

  155. I only want the leaker fired, for intentionally breaching their professional obligations of trust and confidentiality. That's cause, even for civil servants.

    (And no, no KGB-style TLC required.)

  156. Hint: "supporter" != "in"

  157. Yeah, I expect there will be lots of speculation the next few days. It`s a mess—like a high school rumour. It should never have been released until Parliament said it should be released in full.

    By the way, Joel-Denis from La Presse came dangerously close to groping Ignatieff this morning on the streets of Kingston in his excitement about getting a quote about this mess.

  158. I don't think that's unusual. Chrétien did have the report from the AG on the sponsorship program when he passed the leadership of the LPC on to Martin. I think cabinetwould be aware of the contents of the final report (not the draft) but party reps should not have seen this.

  159. Exactly. If anything, my reading of her statement is that she did hint at the draft being at odds with the final document.

    "I strongly caution the public to wait until our final report on the G8 Legacy Infrastructure Fund has been tabled in Parliament and made public."

    But then, that is simply in keeping with her statement that only the FINAL draft represents her findings and conclusions.

  160. That's a pretty pathetic abuse of the AG's neutrality, sir. You owe Ms. Fraser an apology.
    I'm looking forward to your comment on the Conservative behaviour.

    Auditor General Sheila Fraser has written a scathing letter rebuking the Conservatives for misquoting her in a parliamentary report on the costs of the G8/G20 summits in Toronto last summer.

  161. Yep, actually that makes total sense. We've figured it out everyone. She's obviously contradicting Baird, that Con son of b!*ch, and confirming the report that was leaked. It's all so clear!

  162. Because he's the minister responsible. They always get an advance copy of AG reports, usually a few weeks before they're released. Ralph Goodale was walking around with the Sponsorship audit for months before it came out, thanks to Chretien's proroguing of Parliament in Nov '03.

  163. Wow, this scandal just got a new leg!

  164. Did the Liberals know that this was due to be released?
    If so & they knew it would be damaging to the Conservatives, why not wait to bring down the government?

  165. Did the Liberals know that this was due to be released?
    If so & they knew it would be damaging to the Conservatives, why not wait to bring down the government?

    • My guess is they knew it would be bad, but didn't guess about criminality.

  166. Very smooth catch, chet.

  167. That makes sense- thanks to you both, herring and Loraine.

  168. There, there, Mike, don't be sorry. It's not your fault that I condemn Ignatieff for wrongly attributing words to someone currently incapable of denying the scurrilous misquote delivered for partisan gain.

    It is I who is sorry that I have failed to adequately highlight this simple obvious case of common sense for you to understand it fully. You were even kind enough to compliment the attempt, and yet I have failed to make it clear enough for you. I should try harder next time.

  169. Yes, indeed it does.

  170. I appear to discount any effect from the leak because it's nothing new. It's been one trumped-up allegation from the opposition after another, and it's been happening for quite some time now.

    The 2006 RCMP leak has been widely misinterpreted, usually by Liberals who refuse to accept responsibility for their own demise. That story simply entrenched already held views about a government that had scandals written all over it for over a decade.

    I'm sure Canadians will eventually have that view of this current Conservative government, as they do all long-serving governments in Canada. But we're a long way from there, in my opinion, despite these ongoing and desperate attempts by the opposition and some in the media.

  171. As you specifically avoid talking about the substance of what I say in my post, or justify any substance that's supposed to exist in yours. lol. Too funny.

  172. And even after they signed it, they can always have someone else go in and write the word NOT over top of the decision. It's all relaxed and loosey-goosey.

  173. And even after they signed it, they can always have someone else go in and write the word NOT over top of the decision. It's all relaxed and loosey-goosey.

  174. Oo, that's hot. Thanks.

  175. Agreed. Liberal staffers really must stop releasing information when it's not appropriate to do so.

  176. I gotta disagree. I think if the final report is even slightly altered from whatever was released today, all of todays criticisms will ring hallow, and any actual finding of wrong-doing will be glossed over by accusations of Liberal/Media dirty tricks relating to the draft release. In short, if they can't nail the CPC to the wall with this draft report (which is clearly more strongly worded than the final report will be), they won't be get them on a second turn.

  177. I'm looking squarely at Warren Kinsella's corner of the internet. This has all the makings of Wafer-Gate all over again.

  178. Okay, let's not speculate on the AGs report.

    But how about we ask Treasury Board officials if it is their contention that monies used for certain purposes are to be bundled up with monies used for a totally different purpose, and that it is perfectly proper and right to do so?

    "Treasury Board officials maintain it's "normal practice" to aggregate expenditure information in the supplementary estimates and say it was done in this case "to avoid any delays that might occur if a new funding mechanism was created for the one-time (G8) event."

    But Fraser says lumping the legacy fund into the border fund "created a lack of transparency about the purpose of the request for funding and, in our view, Parliament was not provided with a clear explanation of the nature of the approval being sought."

  179. Okay, let's not speculate on the AGs report.

    But how about we ask Treasury Board officials if it is their contention that monies used for certain purposes are to be bundled up with monies used for a totally different purpose, and that it is perfectly proper and right to do so?

    "Treasury Board officials maintain it's "normal practice" to aggregate expenditure information in the supplementary estimates and say it was done in this case "to avoid any delays that might occur if a new funding mechanism was created for the one-time (G8) event."

    But Fraser says lumping the legacy fund into the border fund "created a lack of transparency about the purpose of the request for funding and, in our view, Parliament was not provided with a clear explanation of the nature of the approval being sought."

  180. Where shall the bailiff serve you the papers for the irreparable damage done to my evening because of that visual?

  181. A) Then you might like to see my reply to ajb, just above you..

    B) At least the AG is in a position to respond to that one, unlike the G8-G20 mess into which she has been thrown.

  182. I applaud your creativity.

  183. It would indeed seem silly that an opposition would take down a government solely over a report which was later found not to square with the final draft.

    So silly I think there would be no reason to bring it up, in fact.

  184. Except for the, y'know, illegality.

  185. My guess is they knew it would be bad, but didn't guess about criminality.

  186. Speaking as a public servant, I'm highly disconcerted that these drafts are being leaked. Put aside your political affiliation for a moment and think about it. The public service is supposed to be impartial. It's how the whole thing works with whatever government gets elected. For someone to leak a draft during an election to an opposition party is clearly a partisan act. It's not right.

    The real risk is that it politcizes the Auditor General's office and the audit process. Sheila Frasier is one of the few public officials that Canadians still really trust. She obviously did nothing wrong here, but I think there's a real danger if her office and the process get tainted with politics by actions such as these. It's something that all Canadians should want to avoid.

    Please folks, in between the sniping about how bad the scandal is, stop to take a moment and think about the potential long term damage to Canadian governance from this kind of action.

  187. Speaking as a public servant, I'm highly disconcerted that these drafts are being leaked. Put aside your political affiliation for a moment and think about it. The public service is supposed to be impartial. It's how the whole thing works with whatever government gets elected. For someone to leak a draft during an election to an opposition party is clearly a partisan act. It's not right.

    The real risk is that it politcizes the Auditor General's office and the audit process. Sheila Frasier is one of the few public officials that Canadians still really trust. She obviously did nothing wrong here, but I think there's a real danger if her office and the process get tainted with politics by actions such as these. It's something that all Canadians should want to avoid.

    Please folks, in between the sniping about how bad the scandal is, stop to take a moment and think about the potential long term damage to Canadian governance from this kind of action.

  188. I love when Conbots talk about 4 elections in 7 yrs…does that mean Harper owes Cdns a rebate of 600M for the two elections when he told the GG to progue Parliament?

  189. No, Gomer, it means we've had four $300 million elections in seven years. What is it about this simple claim that drives some of you nuts on here? lol.

  190. Hey, I`m just the messenger—I just happened to be walking by the TV and there it was –happening.

  191. They shoot messengers, don't they?

Sign in to comment.