Who leaked the AG draft?

[betsy]

Joan Dryden from Canadian Press who did the expose' said that the leak came from a source of the Opposition (what Opposition?) and that she knew it was a classified document bearing several warnings one of which was says "no copies to be made." She said that's the reason why she did not want a copy, and her informant only showed it to her to read and just take notes.

Pat Martin, member of the Kangaroo Committee commented on tv that the Tories will probably throw another aide under the bus. This guy's more interested in partisanship than asking the crucial question.....who committed the illegal act?

I want to get to the bottom of all this.

What Opposition Party was the leak source working for?

How long did that particular Opposition Party knew of the existence of this draft? How long did they abbett this illegal act?

It is not coincidence that this leak came about at the eve of a debate.

I want to get to the bottom of this! This remind me of the Wikileaks - except this one was obviously done in the name of cheap shot partisanship! We cannot tolerate this kind of behaviour. Nip it in the bud. There should be a full enquiry....and prosecutions!

Edited April 12, 2011 by betsy

[Shakeyhands]

Pat Martin, member of the Kangaroo Committee commented on tv that the Tories will probably throw another aide under the bus. This guy's more interested in partisanship than asking the crucial question.....who committed the illegal act?

Right, because a complete and total waste of taxpayers money, the amounts of which were decided my a municipal mayor and a private sector manager is not egregious. Blame the messenger.... again...

I want to get to the bottom of this! This remind me of the Wikileaks - except this one was obviously done in the name of cheap shot partisanship! We cannot tolerate this kind of behaviour. Nip it in the bud. There should be a full enquiry....and prosecutions!

Where was the enquiry and prosecutions from the Goodale issue in '06? Are you equally upset about that?

You Booster Club supporters make me laugh.

[Shwa]

Joan Dryden from Canadian Press who did the expose' said that the leak came from a source of the Opposition (what Opposition?) and that she knew it was a classified document bearing several warnings one of which was says "no copies to be made." She said that's the reason why she did not want a copy, and her informant only showed it to her to read and just take notes.

Pat Martin, member of the Kangaroo Committee commented on tv that the Tories will probably throw another aide under the bus. This guy's more interested in partisanship than asking the crucial question.....who committed the illegal act?

I want to get to the bottom of all this.

What Opposition Party was the leak source working for?

How long did that particular Opposition Party knew of the existence of this draft? How long did they abbett this illegal act?

It is not coincidence that this leak came about at the eve of a debate.

I want to get to the bottom of this! This remind me of the Wikileaks - except this one was obviously done in the name of cheap shot partisanship! We cannot tolerate this kind of behaviour. Nip it in the bud. There should be a full enquiry....and prosecutions!

What makes you think this leak was an "illegal act?"

[scribblet]

The Canadian Press said so on a TV interview.

Love the Sun's words on this

If they [the Liberals] go into Tuesday’s debate waving a four-month-old unsubstantiated draft of a yet-to-be-released AG report on G8 spending — conveniently leaked to them at the suspiciously perfect moment — then they will be ignoring Fraser’s warning not to throw caution to the wind.

[Shwa]

The Canadian Press said so on a TV interview.

So in other words, no "illegal act."

[Bryan]

There is no doubt that heads will have to roll not only for leaking this clearly confidential draft document, but for the clear and obvious media bias involved in sitting on said document, only to spring it as if it were some sort of scandal the day before the debate.

Whomever was involved in leaking the document needs to be both fired and prosecuted. And Joan Dryden? If Harper does get his majority, it is going to really suck to be her for the next four years.

Where was the enquiry and prosecutions from the Goodale issue in '06? Are you equally upset about that?

What Goodale issue in 2006? The speculation as to whether he'd run for LPC leadership or not?

Or are you referring to how Goodale threw Serge Nadeau under the bus to avoid being criminally charged when he leaked inside information about income trusts in 2005? As far as who may have informed on the Finance department to the RCMP, all roads there lead to the NDP. Judy Wasylycia-Leis in particular seemed to have a direct line to the RCMP at the time. The biggest difference between this and the AG draft report though, is it was the RCMP themselves who went public with the investigation, not some anonymous opposition member or the press. There's no doubt that both the timing (during an election) and the fact that the RCMP actually publicly confirmed it (which they usually do not do) was bizarre.

Edited April 12, 2011 by Bryan

[Shwa]

There is no doubt that heads will have to roll not only for leaking this clearly confidential draft document, but for the clear and obvious media bias involved in sitting on said document, only to spring it as if it were some sort of scandal the day before the debate.

Whomever was involved in leaking the document needs to be both fired and prosecuted. And Joan Dryden? If Harper does get his majority, it is going to really suck to be her for the next four years.

More truthiness. (I had the URL hand, so I figured I might as well use it again)

What laws can be used to prosecute someone for reading a confidential AG report to a reporter? Do you know? Can you cite the law please?

Just so that when we throw around words like "illegal act" or "prosecute" we know what laws have been broken and under which someone can be prosecuted.

[Molly]

What Goodale issue in 2006? The speculation as to whether he'd run for LPC leadership or not?

Or are you referring to how Goodale threw Serge Nadeau under the bus to avoid being criminally charged when he leaked inside information about income trusts in 2005?

You should be more cautious in accusing Mr. Goodale of anything out-of-line. I don't for one millisecond believe that Goodale was behind that leak. The reason that he's thought of as 'Mr. Clean' is because it describes him completely accurately. He is a man of honour and integrity.

-- and that's coming from someone who campaigned against him several times.

Accusing him just means to me that you have no credibility-- either no knowledge, or no integrity, or both.

[Keepitsimple]

I've sensed for some time that this will end up like the Rob Ford campaign - there was so much piling on by the Toronto Star and the opposition that they lost all cedibility - tempests in teapots and misinformation. The public ended up turning a deaf ear to it and probably even felt sorry for Ford - and he clobbered Smitherman and is Mayor today.

The same thing seems to be happening in this Federal Election....starting with the Kangaroo courts, the contempt, this needless election, and the constant harping and animosity shown by attack dogs like McGuinty and Pat Martin. Sure, the Conservatives shoot themselves in the foot a lot but if the debate is focused on simply bashing the government and Harper stays above the fray....it will seriously backfire on the opposition. It'll be very interesting to see the results.

[capricorn]

So in other words, no "illegal act."

IMO the case can be made that the leak was an illegal action. The release of Auditor General reports is legislated under the Auditor General Act.

In a statement, Ms. Fraser said she would not release the report. “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.”

The Auditor-General Act stipulates that the A-G sends her reports to the Speaker of the Commons, but if the Commons is not sitting – and it is now dissolved for elections – the Speaker must table it on one of the first 15 days after the Commons resumes sitting. Mr. Milliken, who views himself as a conduit through which parliamentary officers report to the Commons, has not yet received a copy of the final report.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/will-auditors-g8-report-postpone-speaker-peter-millikens-retirement/article1980442/

Annual report

12. (1) The Auditor General shall report annually to the Speaker of the Assembly after each fiscal year is closed and the Public Accounts are laid before the Assembly, but not later than the 31st day of December in each year unless the Public Accounts are not laid before the Assembly by that day, and may make a special report to the Speaker at any time on any matter that in the opinion of the Auditor General should not be deferred until the annual report, and the Speaker shall lay each such report before the Assembly forthwith if it is in session or, if not, not later than the tenth day of the next session. R.S.O. 1990, c. A.35, s. 12 (1); 2004, c. 17, s. 14 (1).

http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/statutes/english/elaws_statutes_90a35_e.htm#BK17

The legislation says "shall report annually". It does not say "may report annually". Therefore the Act is clear that the report must be delivered to the Assembly (Parliament) and not through any other government channel.

IMO government officials involved in the preparation/amendment/checking, etc. of Auditor General reports whether in draft or final form are bound by the provisions of the Act. In this light it can be deemed an illegal action. This is not to be confused with whistleblowing. A whistleblower is someone who comes out publicly to denounce government wrongdoing, a la Allan Cutler of Sponsorship fame.

Furthermore, if an Auditor General report is leaked to the media by any such person prior to its release to Parliament, the media is not bound by the legislation. Hence the media is not in contravention of the legislation and is protected by freedom of the press. Thinking back to the Sponsorship and other scandals, had it not been for the relentless investigative reporting of the media those scandals may not have been investigated and prosecuted.

[Harry]

Didn't the Conservatives leak a copy yesterday? Not the first one, but another copy from a month later?

[capricorn]

Didn't the Conservatives leak a copy yesterday? Not the first one, but another copy from a month later?

IMO, the same rules apply regardless of the political leanings of the "leaker".

[capricorn]

Sure, the Conservatives shoot themselves in the foot a lot but if the debate is focused on simply bashing the government and Harper stays above the fray....it will seriously backfire on the opposition. It'll be very interesting to see the results.

When Ignatieff spoke with reporters yesterday on the leaked draft report, one reporter asked him a question about his election voting record. Ignatieff was taken aback and looked flabbergasted that a reporter dared change the subject. He'll get a lot of this changing of topics in tonight's debate and had better not show the same shocked expression. That will not serve him well in a forum with 3 veterans of leaders' debates.

[Harry]

Of course these are whistleblowers.

[Shakeyhands]

Allow me to fill you BC members in on a little something... No one cares that the information was leaked, what they care about is the egregious waste of tax payers monies, well... sane people do anyway.

[Shwa]

IMO the case can be made that the leak was an illegal action. The release of Auditor General reports is legislated under the Auditor General Act.

http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/statutes/english/elaws_statutes_90a35_e.htm#BK17

Nice catch capricorn, but... you are citing the Ontario Auditor General Act... here is the Federal Act.

Auditor General Act (R.S.C., 1985, c. A-17)

Advisory powers

12. The Auditor General may advise appropriate officers and employees in the federal public administration of matters discovered in his examinations and, in particular, may draw any such matter to the attention of officers and employees engaged in the conduct of the business of the Treasury Board.

I am not trying to exonerate someone who acted illegally, but it has to be actually illegal before someone can be charged. In the case of this sort of information release, I think it would be very, very difficult for someone to be successfully prosecuted, let alone charged. For example, the leak might have come from a printer at the Queen's Printers or a sub-contractor. And, as it was 'read' at this point it is pure hearsay.

[capricorn]

Nice catch capricorn, but... you are citing the Ontario Auditor General Act... here is the Federal Act.

Auditor General Act (R.S.C., 1985, c. A-17)

My bad. Let me see if I can find the article relating to reporting to Parliament.

I am not trying to exonerate someone who acted illegally, but it has to be actually illegal before someone can be charged. In the case of this sort of information release, I think it would be very, very difficult for someone to be successfully prosecuted, let alone charged.

Er, it need not lead to jail time or prosecution. In my books losing one's job and accumulated benefits would be plenty of a penalty to pay.

[Harry]

Allow me to fill you BC members in on a little something... No one cares that the information was leaked, what they care about is the egregious waste of tax payers monies, well... sane people do anyway.

I think that is a more accurate assessment of the situation yes.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/the-g8-legacy-millions-mismanaged-parliament-misled/article1981130/

Edited April 12, 2011 by Harry

[Shwa]

My bad. Let me see if I can find the article relating to reporting to Parliament.

There are plenty of 'mays' in the federal act.

Er, it need not lead to jail time or prosecution. In my books losing one's job and accumulated benefits would be plenty of a penalty to pay.

That would be a tough thing to prove - an infraction serious enough to warrant dismissal would have to border illegality.

[Harry]

By-the-way here's the definition for a 'whistleblower' but as Shakeyhands says this isn't the issue of concern here.

A whistleblower (whistle-blower or whistle blower)[1] is a person who tells the public or someone in authority about alleged dishonest or illegal activities (misconduct) occurring in a government department, a public or private organization, or a company. The alleged misconduct may be classified in many ways; for example, a violation of a law, rule, regulation and/or a direct threat to public interest, such as fraud, health/safety violations, and corruption. Whistleblowers may make their allegations internally (for example, to other people within the accused organization) or externally (to regulators, law enforcement agencies, to the media or to groups concerned with the issues).

One of the first laws that protected whistleblowers was the 1863 United States False Claims Act (revised in 1986), which tried to combat fraud by suppliers of the United States government during the Civil War. The act encourages whistleblowers by promising them a percentage of the money recovered or damages won by the government and protects them from wrongful dismissal.[2]

Whistleblowers frequently face reprisal, sometimes at the hands of the organization or group which they have accused, sometimes from related organizations, and sometimes under law.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whistleblower

[Shwa]

I think that is a more accurate assessment of the situation yes.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/the-g8-legacy-millions-mismanaged-parliament-misled/article1981130/

Hmmm....

According to draft reports leaked on Monday, Auditor-General Sheila Fraser is set to condemn the so-called G8 Legacy Infrastructure Fund that was used by the Harper government to shower the riding of a key minister with spending projects.

Ok, some of the reports were leaked...

The initial draft of the report, dated in January and released to the Canadian Press, went as far as saying that the government “misinformed” Parliament and that obtaining approval for funds under the guise of a border initiative might have been illegal. The Conservatives, however, released a second draft to The Globe, dated in February, in which the Auditor-General was still sharply critical, but dropped the reference to breaking the law. In addition, the updated version did not refer to misinformation, but said the government was “not transparent” with Parliament.

So the "Conservatives" released a second draft of the report that was already leaked. Isn't that just as much an "illegal act" as leaking the first draft?

[Harry]

Hmmm....

Ok, some of the reports were leaked...

So the "Conservatives" released a second draft of the report that was already leaked. Isn't that just as much an "illegal act" as leaking the first draft?

Of course, and that is why this thread of feigned outrage is absurd.

[Shwa]

Of course, and that is why this thread of feigned outrage is absurd.

I think the outrage is absurd, but I doubt it is feigned.

[capricorn]

There are plenty of 'mays' in the federal act.

Here's the federal act. The provision on the question of reports does say "shall" and not "may". So my initial analysis stands.

Annual and additional reports to the House of Commons

7. (1) The Auditor General shall report annually to the House of Commons and may make, in addition to any special report made under subsection 8(1) or 19(2) and the Commissioner’s report under subsection 23(2), not more than three additional reports in any year to the House of Commons.

http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/laws/stat/rsc-1985-c-a-17/latest/rsc-1985-c-a-17.html

That would be a tough thing to prove - an infraction serious enough to warrant dismissal would have to border illegality.

I hear you Shwa. Let me say, prior to retirement, in my job as a middle manager in the public service, it was practically impossible to turf an unacceptable employee, except for proven fraud cases.

[Wild Bill]

There are plenty of 'mays' in the federal act.

That would be a tough thing to prove - an infraction serious enough to warrant dismissal would have to border illegality.

You may be right, Shwa. I'm no lawyer. What happened may not be illegal, at least in the eyes of lawyers.

In the eyes of the voting public, who knows? Some things stick and some things don't.

What I DO know is, nobody likes a skunk at a picnic, even if he IS there legally!