Jump to content

AG Draft Report: G8 Funding Lacked Transparency


Recommended Posts

There's nothing wrong with it and of itself, providing, of course, it's done appropriately. It's hard to see how things done thirty or forty miles away can be justified that way, however.

I would like to see the report the real one. I am starting to think that all of this was in a "legacy fund" which was approved by the parliament. I am also starting to think that the Conservatives said in the legacy fund just what they would spend the money on.

I also think it was a waste of money however there seems to be a lot of smoke and mirrors here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 242
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I would like to see the report the real one. I am starting to think that all of this was in a "legacy fund" which was approved by the parliament. I am also starting to think that the Conservatives said in the legacy fund just what they would spend the money on.

I also think it was a waste of money however there seems to be a lot of smoke and mirrors here.

And that's the problem right now. The report won't be tabled until Parliament sits again. Whoever leaked this was pretty savvy. The damage is likely done with little hope of repairing it until later.

At the same time, it appears that the Tories haven't exactly been on the up-and-up with the AG either. Quote mining a previous report of hers to make themselves look good. Doesn't sound very ethical to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well if Fife is correct and there is no mention of this in later drafts, someone could be facing some very serious consequences for this leak. I can't imagine leaking a document from the Auditor General's office is exactly a minor thing. Nor do I think libel and slander should be taken lightly, accusing a party of criminal offenses is a pretty big step outside the house of commons.

Now if only CBC and others had journalists with the balls to investigate things before they get published rather than just being the mouthpeices of paristan hacks, we might actually have a democracy here.

The reality is we see all this nonsense because the journalists are too clueless to actually think about something before its published.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now if only CBC and others had journalists with the balls to investigate things before they get published rather than just being the mouthpeices of paristan hacks, we might actually have a democracy here.

The CBC did investigate. Greg Weston says that some of the legal implications were removed from the report, but everything else is the same, meaning it's still very damning, according to a source inside the Auditor General's office.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well if Fife is correct and there is no mention of this in later drafts, someone could be facing some very serious consequences for this leak. I can't imagine leaking a document from the Auditor General's office is exactly a minor thing. Nor do I think libel and slander should be taken lightly, accusing a party of criminal offenses is a pretty big step outside the house of commons.

Um, I don't really see how libel or slander has anything to do with this. Generally speaking, those who have rightful possession of confidential documents have signed some sort of non-disclosure agreement, and violation of that can lead to civil proceedings, and if the NDA is under the auspices of some sort of legislation, there may in fact be criminal charges.

Now if only CBC and others had journalists with the balls to investigate things before they get published rather than just being the mouthpeices of paristan hacks, we might actually have a democracy here.

The reality is we see all this nonsense because the journalists are too clueless to actually think about something before its published.

Oh quit whining. The press is doing its job. I'll wager you weren't crying foul as the Sponsorship Scandal was unfolding.

Edited by ToadBrother
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The CBC did investigate. Greg Weston says that some of the legal implications were removed from the report, but everything else is the same, meaning it's still very damning, according to a source inside the Auditor General's office.

The mere fact that the Tories cannot readily disarm this bomb makes it bad. And even if the "misdeeds" portion of it is excised, it still indicates some pretty irresponsible spending, which undermines the whole idea that the Tories are the right choice for the management of the public coffers.

Obviously leaks like this usually end up with everyone realizing that it wasn't as bad as it first appeared, but at the same time, coupled with some of the other ethical missteps surrounding the G8 issue, the Tories are going to take some damage around this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh quit whining. The press is doing its job. I'll wager you weren't crying foul as the Sponsorship Scandal was unfolding.

People were criminally convicted for that. No one is going to be convicted for this, there are no legal issues identified by the AG apparently. Shoveling envelopes full of cash for party fundraisers under the table is a bit different then blowing a budget.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

People were criminally convicted for that. No one is going to be convicted for this, there are no legal issues identified by the AG apparently. Shoveling envelopes full of cash for party fundraisers under the table is a bit different then blowing a budget.

:rolleyes: Any excuse will do? If money was misspent, that borders on criminal, and it's certainly wasteful.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

People were criminally convicted for that. No one is going to be convicted for this, there are no legal issues identified by the AG apparently. Shoveling envelopes full of cash for party fundraisers under the table is a bit different then blowing a budget.

Me thinks you're intentionally missing the point. The press's job is to report, even if its damning, not to cover things up for your favorite party.

Maybe the real problem here is that you have emotionally adopted a particular party, and you get to have all the baggage that goes with that.

Edited by ToadBrother
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ohhh, really SCARRRYY:

Conclusion

2.22 - In our view, the manner in which the G8 Legacy Infrastructure Fund was presented did not make clear to Parliament the full nature of the request. By including the request under the item "Funding for the Border Infrastructure Fund relating to investments in infrastructure to reduce border congestion" government did not clearly or transparently identify the nature of the request for funding, that is, G8 infrastructure project spending.

2.23 - We could not conclude on project selection because documentation was not available to show how projects were chosen. We found that, once presented with the final list of projects to fund, Infrastructure Canada set up mechanisms to administer the contribution agreements. The Department examined the 32 projects to ensure they met the terms and conditions of the G8 Legacy Infrastructure Fund and that agreements were made in accordance with government policy. Infrastructure Canada maintained project records 'and established project management frameworks.

Sounds like another Bev Oda wanna-be scandal. They had a bad title on the proposal. Whoop-de-do. All projects met the terms and conditions of the G8 Legacy Infrastructure Fund per the AG, in accordance with government policy.

What's the problem here again?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Me thinks you're intentionally missing the point. The press's job is to report, even if its damning, not to cover things up for your favorite party.

The problem is the press just runs whatever is in front of them. They have a duty to research and ensure what they are publishing is factual, which apparently they jumped the gun on here.

The February draft is far less damning, in fact, it's harmless.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ohhh, really SCARRRYY:

Sounds like another Bev Oda wanna-be scandal. They had a bad title on the proposal. Whoop-de-do. All projects met the terms and conditions of the G8 Legacy Infrastructure Fund per the AG, in accordance with government policy.

What's the problem here again?

Maybe you should read the rest of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem is the press just runs whatever is in front of them. They have a duty to research and ensure what they are publishing is factual, which apparently they jumped the gun on here.

The press made it clear it was a draft report. You're just angry that the press doesn't kiss your favorite party's ass.

The February draft is far less damning, in fact, it's harmless.

It's less damning, it's not harmless. You're just so desperate to have the Tories look nice (and I can't imagine why anyone would have such bizarre fixations on any party, it's kind of pathetic) that you've skimmed the conclusion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So.....the headline should read:

"Auditor urges caution in wake of leaked report"

Do you think that's what the Star and the Globe will print? ;)

Not a hope in hell, we know what the headlines will say...

I would agree that it looks like there was some pork barelling but as the second report says, there was nothing illegal, and no misinforming parliament.

Speaking of ethics, the opposition illegally leaked that draft report (not the AG office)that had gone out to various dept., illegally and unethically, they should be careful about pointing fingers. This was a classic destabilization effort on the part of the Liberals in leaking a misleading document prior to the main debate, the second draft has none of the inflammatory language. Not that this will stop the presses LOL

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My question is which party in Parliament fell for this and let a very hazy description of spending pass? Seriously who voted for the Legacy project and let it pass parliament? I know the Cons are dumb but who else should share the blame?

Be interesting to find out. My thinking is that this was during the height of detente between the Tories and Liberals. But the guy on the wheel deck gets the blame if the ship hits the rocks even if the guy trimming the sails didn't slow the ship down.

(I know, I know, worst maritime analogy ever)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just don't see the smoking gun, here.

Instead, I see the following:

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.
Toronto Star

IOW, the opposition deliberately leaked this draft report in the midst of a campaign to achieve maximum harm to teh government.

This is just politics as usual, and will be seen that way among potentially swing voters.

Even the AG said so:

“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.”

She said 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.”

----

I would not be surprised to see more "leaks" from the Ottawa bureaucracy as we get closer to the election. Some of these people really hate Harper and the Conservatives.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Be interesting to find out. My thinking is that this was during the height of detente between the Tories and Liberals. But the guy on the wheel deck gets the blame if the ship hits the rocks even if the guy trimming the sails didn't slow the ship down.

(I know, I know, worst maritime analogy ever)

I am just asking who didn't do their job in opposition because if they weren't doing their job in opposition I am not voting for them now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would agree that it looks like there was some pork barelling but as the second report says, there was nothing illegal, and no misinforming parliament.
I agree.

I was as appalled at the G8 spending as anyone but it's hardly new for politicians spend our money on paving roads.

----

OTOH, this false outrage from the opposition reminds me of all the other opposition claims over the past few years. "Harper is a dishonest weasel who lies, cheats and is a dictator!"

The opposition has to find some other way to move voters away from the Conservatives.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

=================

OTOH, this false outrage from the opposition reminds me of all the other opposition claims over the past few years. "Harper is a dishonest weasel who lies, cheats and is a dictator!"

The opposition has to find some other way to move voters away from the Conservatives.

Yup, and they have, I bet the headlines tomorrow morning will not read “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.” LOL

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,712
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    nyralucas
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Jeary earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Venandi went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • Gaétan earned a badge
      Very Popular
    • Dictatords earned a badge
      First Post
    • babetteteets earned a badge
      One Year In
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...