Tuesday, April 12, 2011

Questions About Auditor General Draft Report Leak Timeline

What fortunate timing for the Liberals that this incomplete draft of an Auditor General's report on G8 spending was leaked to the media right before the debates. The Liberals were expressing shocked outrage on Monday, but they were fully aware of this report's existence because it was thoroughly debated in a government committee that included the opposition parties. At some point a few months ago it was obtained by a Liberal supporter and later leaked to Joan Bryden at the most strategic date possible. Otherwise the Liberals would not have been allowed to talk about this report, but instead yesterday it was all they were talking about.

AG Sheila Fraser was upset that the report had been released prior to the final draft, because that draft was still in the fact checking phase. It was not prepared for release to Canadians as the investigation was incomplete. I'm curious to know when did the committee discuss this report, and when did unknown source first obtain it? The committee was likely closed to the public because it discussed a report that was not permitted to be released to the public. I'd really like to know more about that time lag when it discussed versus when it was obtained. Given that this report was illegally leaked, there will almost certainly be some kind of formal investigation into the timeline of this convenient confluence of events.


  1. I would not doubt it was an actual MP or a staffer for an MP that leaked it.

  2. Even if the excuses of some conspiracy of when it was released holds water it does not change the Fact of the corruption going on in the CPC.

    Brought to you by the Harper Gov's Action plan.

  3. Maybe it was leaked by someone higher up...I have two suspects in mind.The Canadian Press are really running wild with this so called draft. John Baird said yesterday, none of their drafts have that wording on it. I think its all BS and a set up to give the coalition something to talk about other then their bloated platforms for votes.

  4. it does not change the Fact of the corruption going on in the CPC.

    And your proof of this is? You better pull yourself away from CBC buddy, or is that you Iggy? Canadians don't take lessons from Liberano$.

  5. Anon,

    Tell me when either the LIEberals or Cons were not involved in corruption. For every Con corruption charge there are at least three for the LIEberals. If you truly believe that there was NO corruption by the LIEberals [Ad-scam example] ever, thenI will vote LIEberal or Non-Democradic Party. It will never happen. Get a life, you are grasping at straws.


    Nothing will happen.

    The Canadian Union of Public Employees [CUPE} will make sure that the person responsable will just get a reminder that they are not suppose to tell confidential information.

    And our tax dollars go to pay for the very few government workers that do these things. They give the real government hard workers a bad name that gives the impression that all are like this person. [No, I am not a government worker.]

    Brough to you by the Clown Party of Canada

  6. Who would know better than the Liberals about scams and corruption?
    They are the ones who perfected it, only problem is: They couldn't pull it off and got caught with their hands in the cookie jar.
    The R.C.M.P. have now been called in, so that should be very interesting and the public hanging of the individual who leaked the document will acknowledge that his/her career whatever that was - is finished!

  7. Brought to you by the Harper Gov's Action plan,
    $62 BILLION injected into the Canadian economy at lightning speed.

    If this is the Liberal game changer, they need to shake a few more brown envelopes loose,
    or just make more shiiit up,
    because their candidate for Canadian Prime Minister is a self proclaimed American Democrat...

  8. I would say you think it is perfectly right for the conservatives to use a quote the Auditor General made on the good work the liberals did post 9/11, and post it as what good work the conservatives iied about.

    You are one sick puppy.

    I have in the pass voted conservative, but will never vote again for this conservative goverment. I have more respect for myself and true conservative principles then this bunch.

  9. One can say they voted for a party in the past but wont vote for them again. Of course you have no way to prove what you say.

  10. Peter Milliken is and always was a Liberal Cheer Leader
    Peter Milliken showed he was a fraud and his impartiality was non-existent to Canadians yesterday when he showed up at a Ignatieff Liberal rally to receive a shower of thanks from Iggy for helping the coalition of parties defeat the government. If anyone thought for one minute that this Liberal was a rare bird and capable of honesty found out yesterday he was a part of the plot of the coalition to bring down the government.

  11. This is not about corruption at all! This "scandal" is about funds being spent under a different accounting line than what was proposed in parliament. Wow. OMG. Someone messed up on the accounting. Call in the RCMP.

  12. Fiscal Conservative, Social LiberalApril 12, 2011 at 1:13 PM

    The economy and security appear to be a higher priority for Conservative supporters than the liberty, freedoms, and the transparent democracy our forefathers fought and died for. It should not be so. Our economy and security won't seem so important to us in 40 years if we are living in a dictatorship and/or police state.

    Even without this latest AG report development, the Conservative Government has demonstrated its willingness to lie, deceive, or mislead. We don't really need to see the final draft to know the general gist of the report.

    The parties on the left seem fiscally irresponsible, but they are at least comparatively ethical (recently).

  13. That the draft report was leaked the day before the debate in order to cause maximum political damage goes without saying. That Conservative supporters appear to believe this cancels out the insertion of a ten year old quote into a report to Parliament is not surprising but is still pathetic IMO.

  14. Fiscal Conservative, Social Liberal, while I commend you for upholding the ideals of "the liberty, freedoms, and the transparent democracy" I have to question whether you actually believe in those ideals.

    May I remind you that it was YOUR party that was willing to bypass the well-worn and tested tradition of our parliamentary system by agreeing to oust the Conservative government re-elected in 2008?

    That it was your party that was willing to take over the reins of government despite having garnered almost half the number of seats the Conservatives had won in 2008?

    That it was your party that was willing to disregard the voice of the people, who had given the Conservatives a bigger plurality of seats in 2008?

    That it was your party that was willing to grant the Bloc, a party dedicated to the secession of Quebec from Canada, a virtual veto on whatever legislation was proposed, agreeing to legislation only if it favoured Quebec but not necessarily the RoC?

    Fiscal Conservative, Social Liberal, you can understand if I'm sceptical about the sincerity of your professed idealism.
    -- Gabby in QC

  15. For those who wish to speculate
    • why did Liberal MP Jean-Claude D'Amours present this motion at the Standing Committee on Public Accounts on March 24, the day before the government fell on the non-confidence vote http://bit.ly/hZyAUj
    • why did the Conservatives vote the way they did
    • and why did the NDP MP vote the way they did.

    You can read the exchanges that took place in the transcript of the Public Accounts committee (link above)

    I call your attention in particular to this remark by Andrew Saxton (CPC):
    "Mr. Chair, I have a motion that has been on the floor of this committee since February 11. That motion takes precedence over this motion. We have discussed the issue of dealing with documents over and over again in this committee, and we need to deal with this once and for all to prevent this committee chair from constantly allowing documents to somehow be leaked to further his and their party."
    (my added emphasis)
    -- Gabby in QC

  16. Fiscal Conservative, Social LiberalApril 12, 2011 at 2:11 PM

    Gabby in QC:

    There's nothing wrong with a coalition, I don't understand the logic of those arguments.


  17. Fiscal Conservative, Social Liberal, you're right, theoretically there's nothing wrong with a coalition, if certain conditions apply.

    But the 2008 version attempted by the Liberals, NDP, and the Bloc was an unholy alliance because:
    • An election six weeks earlier had granted the Conservatives an increased plurality by the electorate, so there was no doubt as to which party should govern.

    • The Official Opposition had come in a distant second in that election, so it had no right to usurp that power.

    • The Official Opposition had decided not to oppose the Speech from the Throne, thus initially expressing its confidence in the Conservatives' ability to govern.

    • There is ample evidence in the media that the coalition had been planned and agreed to prior to the election, despite the many denials the coalition partners gave when asked if they were planning one.

    • Despite efforts by so-called constitutional experts who're regularly trotted out by the media wishing to legitimize coalitions by saying they are a traditional way of our government, the reality is there has been only ONE true coalition -- two or more parties sharing power at the cabinet table -- in Canadian (federal) history since 1867, Borden's Union government of 1917.

    And if you can't see the logic in those, then I guess our exchanges are pointless.
    -- Gabby in QC

  18. Fiscal Conservative, Social LiberalApril 12, 2011 at 3:08 PM

    Gabby in QC,

    I can see how this would be offensive if it didn't suit your agenda but the fact remains a coalition in those circumstances would have been perfectly legal. Unprecedented does not mean immoral. Since the rules clearly allow it no matter what passing of time has occurred since the last election and no matter the distribution of seats, it is a fair tool for any party to use at any time. Those are the rules and that is the game.

    I won't argue that it wasn't an unpopular move, but to call it a threat to our freedom when it is something that our foundational laws (the ones our freedoms are founded on) expressly permit is plainly unfair.

  19. Fiscal Conservative, Social Liberal, sorry for the delay in responding. I've been watching the debate and the ensuing commentary ...

    You've used some strong words to describe my position, but I'm afraid none of them is accurate. I never used the word "immoral" nor did I imply a coalition would have been illegal

    However, let's remember Canada is governed according to constitutional conventions. In the 40 elections since Confederation (this one will be the 41st) there have been 13 elections in which no party garnered a clear majority of seats.

    Those minority governments have been able to govern by getting support from other MPs and/or parties on a case-by-case basis, without forming a true coalition, which involves two or more parties sitting at the cabinet table, as the attempted coalition/power grab of 2008 tried to do. To boot, the Bloc would have determined which bills would pass into law, since without their support the Liberals together with the NDP did not have the numbers necessary to govern.

    The difference between those other minorities and Harper's minorities? None of those minority governments were challenged as illegitimate or not representative of public support, despite the fact they were elected with percentages ranging from 35.89% to 42.90% of the popular vote -- until 2008.

    The Liberals, impatient to regain the power they had lost with the election of the Conservative Party in 2006 and seeing the prospects for their comeback rather dim, decided to regain power not by the conventional way of winning an election but by wresting power from the Conservatives in 2008, when the latter had received an even stronger mandate from the electorate, going from 124 seats to 143, 12 seats shy of a majority.

    The fact Minister Flaherty's 5 budgets passed with the support of opposition MPs or parties proves that Mr. Harper tried to work with other parties, despite what the media and the opposition would have us believe.

    PM Harper has worked according to parliamentary convention. Remember that cooperation, compromise and working together is a two-way street. But it does not mean the parties with fewer seats get to form government and set the agenda, especially six weeks after an election. THAT is what offended a majority of people in 2008 and that's what makes people wary in this one.

    If the coalition partners want to present themselves to the electorate, let them state clearly what their intentions are. Let the electorate decide.
    -- Gabby in QC