KCCCC Day 18: The past 24 hours – will they matter tonight?
- Where to start? The debate we were all anticipating (well, some of us, anyway) 24 hours ago is long gone. It’s a new debate, now. In just 24 hours, we’ve learned the following:
- The Conservatives broke the law on spending: So says the A.G. Coverage/commentary here and here and here and here.
- They lied like bastards: And deliberately falsified the record relating to the selfsame Auditor General, as reported here and here and here and here.
- They paraded hookers through 24 Sussex: So they now admit, here and here and here.
- They had senior Prime Ministerial advisors who were sleazy crooks: So says the record, here and here and here.
- Lawbreakers; liars; hookers; criminals: These guys have it all. Christ Almighty, do they ever look like sleazebags, now. Their standard response to criticisms about same? One, “no one cares.” Two, “Adscam.” Three, “you guys were worse, nyeah nyeah nyeah.”
- Other takes: Here and here and here.
- It’s going to be an interesting debate: Here’s a bit from my column in today’s Sun, below. What do you think? Am I right, wrong? “I have done debate prep with a variety of politicians over the years, from former PM Jean Chretien to premiers Gord Campbell and Dalton McGuinty. In every case, I’ve passed along the same advice. One, to win, your side’s message must dominate. For Harper, it’s the economy and law and order; for Ignatieff, it’s health care, ethics, Harper’s dictatorial style — and, now, that leaked auditor general report suggesting the Tories broke spending laws at the G8. It doesn’t matter how charming and smooth you are — if most of the minutes that make up a debate are dominated by the other guy’s campaign themes, you’re going to lose. Period.”
- Pic of the day: Whose got the best caption for this one?
Email from a Liberal in Ottawa
“Warren, as an FYI…during the last meeting of Public Accounts, Liberals brought forward a motion to call on the AG to release the very report that had part of it released today…whether the House was sitting [or not]. The Tories AND the NDP voted against it.”
Auditor General: Conservatives are liars
I probably could have written a slightly more benign headline, but it’s about right. To wit:
“I would appreciate it if the report could be modified as it is clearly erroneous.”
Boy, it sure is a good thing this isn’t all happening right before the leaders’ debates, or anything!
When a Sparrow sings
Ryan Sparrow is a member of the Conservative Party’s war room, as seen here and here and here. He is the party’s spokesman, and is not a PMO employee or a ministerial staffer. He is not an MP, or someone who would have received an A.G.’s report in advance.
Why, then, does partisan hack – one who is not held in the highest regard by many – have a copy of the Auditor General’s report on allegedly unlawful G8 spending? How did that happen, exactly? When Stockwell Day made “criminal” allegations about Jean Chretien in the 2000 campaign, none of us in the war room saw the report clearing Chretien in advance – we got it when the media and Day did.
That’s not all. Why were the AG’s tough comments – eg., “we are concerned” – apparently excised from the final draft? Did Conservative Party employees push for that? Who else in CPC HQ has seen the various drafts? Isn’t that contempt of Parliament?
Man oh man, I’ll bet my Con pals would like to see Senator Finlay back running things. Again.
Tories left scrambling after leak of G8 report, call for release of final draft (FedElxn)
Source: The Canadian Press
Apr 11, 2011 12:37
OTTAWA – The Conservative election campaign is in full damage-control mode following a bombshell report from the auditor general that’s critical of government spending during last June’s G8 meeting.
An early draft of the report, a chapter of which has been seen by The Canadian Press, accuses the government of misinforming Parliament to win approval of a $50-million fund for spending in Industry Minister Tony Clement’s riding.
Fraser suggests the process by which the funding was approved may have been illegal.
The Conservatives themselves want Auditor General Sheila Fraser to release the final version of the report before Tuesday night’s federal leaders’ debate.
Tory spokesman Ryan Sparrow says the draft report does not reflect the final report, which was shelved until after the May 2 election.
Sparrow says the government is prepared to facilitate the final report’s release, which he says would also require the consent of the Speaker.
News of the report landed like a bombshell on the federal campaign trail.
Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff echoed the call for the report’s release and accused the Conservatives of showing contempt for Parliament and for Canadians.
Bloc Quebecois Leader Gilles Duceppe also called for the report to be released before Tuesday night’s English leaders’ debate.
INDEX: NATIONAL POLITICS
© 2011 The Canadian Press
AG says Reformatories may have broken law (updated)
Is this a game-changer? It sure as Hell is – just as was the RCMP income trust probe, which broke just a few days before the first debate in 2006. And we all remember how that election turned out for the governing party.
The Reformartory war room (!) is now tweeting (!) that the report referenced in the CP story isn’t the same as the final A.G. report. So, um, how would a political party’s war room know that? Why do they have the final report, and no one else? Was the Con war room withholding the report until after the election?
My, my. What tangled web we weave.
Tories misinformed Parliament on G8 fund, may have broken law: auditor general (Auditor-General-G8)
Source: The Canadian Press
Apr 11, 2011 11:39
By Joan Bryden
THE CANADIAN PRESS
OTTAWA – The Harper government misinformed Parliament to win approval for a $50-million G8 fund that lavished money on dubious projects in a Conservative riding, the auditor general has concluded.
And she suggests the process by which the funding was approved may have been illegal.
The findings are contained in a confidential report Sheila Fraser was to have tabled in Parliament on April 5. The report analyzed the $1-billion cost of staging last June’s G8 summit in Ontario cottage country and a subsequent gathering of G20 leaders in downtown Toronto.
It was put on ice when the Harper government was defeated and is not due to be released until sometime after the May 2 election.
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.
The draft reveals that a local “G8 summit liaison and implementation team” – Industry Minister Tony Clement, the mayor of Huntsville, and the general manager of Deerhurst Resort which hosted the summit – chose the 32 projects that received funding. It says there was no apparent regard for the needs of the summit or the conditions laid down by the government.
The report provides campaign fodder for opposition critics who’ve long maintained the legacy fund was a thinly disguised slush fund for Clement to dole out federal largesse in his riding.
Among the questionable projects funded were:
_ $274,000 on public toilets 20 km from the summit site.
_ $100,000 on a gazebo an hour’s drive away.
_ $1.1 million for sidewalk and tree upgrades 100 km away.
_ $194,000 for a park 100 km away.
_ $745,000 on downtown improvements for three towns nearly 70 km away.
The draft report says that in November 2009, the government tabled supplementary spending estimates which requested $83 million for a Border Infrastructure Fund aimed at reducing congestion at border crossings.
But the government did not reveal that it intended to devote $50 million of that money to a G8 legacy fund, even though Huntsville is nowhere near the Canada-U.S. border.
The Canadian Press was not given access to the entire report on the $1 billion in G8 and G20 spending, and Fraser’s conclusions on overall spending were not available.
In the draft chapter on the legacy fund, Fraser notes the Appropriations Act stipulates that funding is supposed to be allocated based on the items presented in the estimates.
“This ensures that public funds are spent as authorized by Parliament for the purposes intended by Parliament,” she writes.
“We found that money expended for the G8 infrastructure projects under the Border Infrastructure Fund were approved by Parliament without any indication that $50 million of the appropriations for border congestion reduction would be spent on G8 legacy projects.
“Therefore, in our opinion, Parliament was misinformed.”
The report says the government disagrees with the auditor general’s finding. 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.”
She adds that “this matter raises broader legal questions related to the use of appropriated funds by government. Parliament may wish to examine these competing interpretations to ensure that vote wording reflects Parliament’s intentions.”
The legacy fund was intended to help Parry Sound-Muskoka, the host riding represented by Clement, “enhance local infrastructure and showcase its natural beauty and support a safe, secure and successful hosting of the G8 summit.”
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.
In an attempt to find out why $50 million was deemed necessary for Parry Sound-Muskoka, Fraser’s auditors interviewed senior officials at Infrastructure Canada, Industry Canada, Foreign Affairs, the RCMP and the office responsible for co-ordinating security for the summit.
“Senior officials were not able to provide us with an explanation as they explained that their input was not sought as part of the process,” the report says.
That proved to be a pattern as Fraser’s team attempted to find out how projects were chosen and what possible support they might have provided to the summit.
Clement’s local liaison team was responsible for identifying and proposing projects worthy of funding. To win approval, the team was supposed to work with Foreign Affairs’ summit management office to ensure the proposed projects supported the needs of the summit.
“We asked the Summit Management Office to provide us with any documentation showing how they were involved in the review of projects but were informed that they were not involved,” Fraser says.
Fraser’s auditors also asked Infrastructure Canada, which provided the funds, for documentation demonstrating how the projects were chosen and how they fit with the purpose of the fund.
“The department was not able to provide us with any documentation as they were not part of the selection process and informed us they were not provided with supporting documentation when given the recommended list of projects to be funded.”
Indeed, the report notes that Clement announced several projects would receive funding before the government actually spelled out the conditions for funding.
``We are concerned by the lack of documentation around the selection of projects for funding,” Fraser says, adding that documentation is vital to “demonstrate transparency, accountability and value for money” in the expenditure of public money.
Fraser’s team also examined the list of 32 projects that received funding but “(we) were not able to determine how they supported the needs of the summit or met the conditions set out by government.”
For instance, the report notes the government devoted $26 million to create a Huntsville G8 Centre, which was supposed to be the command centre for co-ordinating logistics for the summit.
“We were informed that at the time of the announcement for this project, (Foreign Affairs) had already determined the centre would not be suitable as it was not expected to be completed on time,” Fraser says.
In the end, other facilities were rented for the command centre.
The report is likely to turn up the heat on Clement, who’s already been accused of funnelling disproportionate amounts of federal cash into his riding.
The Liberal party has calculated that Clement’s riding has received about $92 million in federal infrastructure funding, including the legacy fund and other economic stimulus programs – more than four times the average $15 million to $20 million most ridings in the country received.
Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff last week urged Prime Minister Stephen Harper to authorize release of Fraser’s report before the May 2 election.
In an interview late last month with a local media outlet, Clement suggested he had nothing to fear from the eventual release of the auditor general’s report.
“I’m quite confident that every penny that was spent in Muskoka and Parry Sound and in Toronto was accounted for,” he told CottageCountryNow.
INDEX: NATIONAL POLITICS
© 2011 The Canadian Press
KCCCC Day 17: One day to the debates!
- Are you excited, yet? I can assure you that the leaders certainly are. Of all the things you can do in your life, gambling your future – and that of your family, friends, staff and not a few Canadians – in a TV debate is very, very nerve-wracking. I write about this subject in the Sun tomorrow, and suggest that it is Michael Ignatieff with the most to gain: “Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff legitimately has a shot – two, actually – at becoming Prime Minister of Canada. And his first opportunity comes tonight, at the English-language leaders’ TV debates. His second comes later, at the French-language debate. If he does well in both debates – and if enough folks have tuned in to watch – a little bit of history could be made. If he sounds and looks like a Prime Minister – and not the effete, out-of-touch academic the Tories have insisted he is – Michael Ignatieff could win.”
- …and Iggy is nervous: Says he: “I’ve never done this before. I’m the only one of the leaders who has never done it. So I go in there with, what can I say?” Ignatieff told reporters in Toronto on Saturday. “I go in there with a sense of little apprehension. I’ve got a lot to learn.” He may be lowering expectations, and he may be telling the truth. Either way, it doesn’t matter what he says until he steps onto that stage in Ottawa. The pre-debate spin doesn’t count nearly as much as showtime.
- Ibbitson in the Globe: My fellow former Citizen summer student John also says the stakes are very high for Ignatieff: “Despite running a mostly error-free campaign, the Liberal Leader still hasn’t caught on with voters.” He needs a knock-out, John says, to narrow the gap with Stephen Harper’s Conservatives. That may worry Grits, but they should remember that the numbers haven’t changed so much because most of the gettable vote hasn’t tuned in yet. That’ll change tomorrow night.
- Doyle, also in Das Globen: John Doyle, being a fellow Irishman who is one of the few people able to pronounce my surname properly (it’s “kinsh-la,” sort of) is always a wonderful read. He occasionally offers up his views on politics, which makes his columns even wonderfuller to read. Says John: “And then there is the matter of the style and content of the TV debates. Again, in this area, we suffer by comparison with the U.S. The seriousness of American presidential debates is truly admirable and, often, our leaders’ debates look silly in comparison.”
- Liz is heard from: She’s still upset that she isn’t in the debates – and that the French encounter was rescheduled for the Habs-Bruins game. I understand (but don’t agree with) her being upset about getting the hook from the broadcast consortium – but sounding critical of the ages-old Montreal-Boston grudge match is unCanadian!
- Muldoon is heard from: Brian Mulroney was a guy who was always very effective in the leaders’ debates. He isn’t weighing in on that subject in this eyebrow-raising Star story – but he’s making his feeling very, very clear. And he doesn’t like Stephen Harper, at all. An amazing read.
- Paikin as a moderator: It’s well-known, in political circles, that Steve leans to Team Blue, but I don’t necessarily think he’ll be unfair in tomorrow’s debate. He’s been fine in the past. He’s stubbon, however. Such as when he showed appalling judgment by insisting that taxpayer dollars be used to host a white supremacist on TVO. Not his finest moment.
- Sun TV starts this week! Or in the next few days, anyway. Tune in!
- The new Campaigns and Elections is out: Give it a read and have a great debate week:
Sigh
The Hudak-Hillier PC “death wish”
When Chris Blizzard says the Ontario PCs are in deep trouble, they are.
They are falling apart. And it’s going to get a lot worse.
KCCCC Day 16: NNW linkage day
- It’s Sunday, and a day of rest…sort of. Quickie bits on assorted NNW-influenced subjects below!
- It’s an election! Time to write the obligatory ad and image “experts” story! I don’t know the other woman, but Bernie Gauthier is a smart cat. That said, I suspect Bernie is amused as I am by the regular-as-the-seasons predictability of some assignment editors, who get these types of “expert says” stories written up every damn campaign. Newsflash from the back rooms, assignment editors: no advertising people, with precious few exceptions, have ever done political advertising. They know dick about political communications. So why call them experts on political ads? Ditto most of the self-appointed image consultants: the best image, every smart campaign knows, is the one that is truthful – and the best “look” for a politician is the one that is truly them. Simple.
- Is Stephen Harper hated by the media? No more and no less than other Prime Ministers, I’d say: Trudeau was openly detested by many Gallery folks in the latter years; Clark, Campbell and Turner were ridiculed throughout their brief reigns; Mulroney was distinctly unloved in the second half; Chretien was called a “dictator” and worse; Martin was “Dithers” and so on. The PM-Gallery relationship is a useful hate-hate relationship, in both directions: a leader’s core like it when he dismisses/disrespects his/her ink-stained detractors – and all writers write better when they have a villain. Thus, as one of the bosses to both Bono et moi told me this week, the Toronto Sun would not have existed, and flourished, had it not been for Pierre Trudeau. Both sides gave each other something to swing at. It balances the universe. Yin and yang, etc.
- How is our Invisible War going? As you may recall, a few weeks ago, our Prime Minister (a) declared war on Libya (b) started to help bomb Libya and (c) called an election in Canada. Thus, this must-read column by my colleague Mercedes, who has forgotten more about the military than Harper will ever know. We are indeed hypocrites, as she writes – and it is foolhardy to believe we will ever triumph in Libya (as in Iraq and Afghanistan). Never get involved in a land war in Asia, as Gen. McArthur once said; we shouldn’t have (but did) in Libya.
- Nanos Nick’s nightlies: Cons 39, Libs 31, Dippers in deep shit, here. Will the Cons win? Seems likely. Will they win a majority? Seems highly unlikely. Will Con, Lib and Dipper folks ask on May 3 why they didn’t resist the temptation to have an election? Seems inevitable!
- Caption contest!
“On top of old smo-key, I saw the latest elections polls! And for my Diiiii-ppers, they are for the whom the bell tolls!”