The enemy of my enemy is my friend.
“And, apparently, Ralph Goodale just said I was “poison” in the privileged environment of the House of Commons. Wow! Could it be that Mr. Goodale is upset that his infamous March 27, 1995 letter – you know, the one where he demands that Public Works grant, and I quote, “a sole source contract” to “The Earnscliffe Strategy Group” for $50,000, because “the primary consultant…is from Saskatchewan” – is now on the public record? The one that seeks a sole source for a friend of Paul Martin who, coincidentally, was already doing the work anyway? No, I’m sure it’s all just a coincidence.”
Globe and Mail has this curious exchange.
“Why does the government not just admit . . . the Prime Minister abused the process to get contracts to his friends at Earnscliffe, to his campaign manager David Herle?” Conservative Leader Stephen Harper said. “Why does he not just admit that he got public money to his political associates?”
Deputy Prime Minister Anne McLellan and Finance Minister Ralph Goodale jumped to Mr. Martin’s defence as opposition MPs chanted “where’s Paul” — a reference to the Prime Minister’s empty Commons seat. Aides said that Mr. Martin was meeting with foreign ambassadors and representatives after the government released its new policy paper on foreign affairs
Mr. Goodale insisted that an independent audit by accounting firm Ernst and Young in 1997 and the Auditor-General’s review in the 2003 had found no rigging of contracts. (Emphasis mine).
Ralph Goodale is lying – as former Public Works minister (charged with cleaning up the “mess”) the ignorance defence is not available.
When Public Works employee Allan Cutler blew the whistle in 1996 on what was going on in the procurement and contracting process, an internal audit did indeed turn up serious concerns and warned of dire consequences, both legal and political – yet the version released by Liberal-friendly” Ernst & Young had scrubbed those clean.
It didn’t escape the attention of Justice Gomery. CBC, Sept 2004;
There was mystifying testimony at the inquiry into the sponsorship scandal on Tuesday, when a 1996 audit was produced. The draft of the audit warned of dire consequences unless the problems were corrected. But in the final report those warnings were gone.
The audit of what was then the section of the Department of Public Works that administered advertising contracts, found recurring problems. Contracts were backdated, there was no evidence all potential suppliers were given the opportunity to bid, and bids weren’t always properly evaluated.
But in their final report the auditors from Ernst and Young summed up the situation by saying the rules were generally being followed.
Inquiry commissioner Justice John Gomery told the panel of three auditors that he was “mystified” by their actions. “You didn’t rewrite it, you watered it down,” he said. “Why did you water it down?”
The auditor’s draft warned the government to respond immediately or risk legal action and embarrassing public attention. It also suggested the government might not be receiving value for its money. Those points were taken out of the final version.
“Why were they dropped?” asked Neil Finklestein, the inquiry’s co-counsel.
“I do not recall,” said Deanne Monaghan, a partner at Ernst and Young.
Justice Gomery appeared frustrated. But neither Monaghan nor two former associates, Madeleine Brillant and Julie Morin, could recall the reasons for the changes.
The auditors also faced criticism for including a detail in the final version’s executive summary. They indicated there was no evidence of personal gain from any of the irregularities they found.
However, Monaghan testified that in order for that conclusion to be meaningful her firm would had to have done a forensic audit and it didn’t do that.
But Monaghan disagreed the audit was watered down. “On reflection and with the benefit of hindsight, I would have made it stronger. Certainly at the time we felt it was a reasonable conclusion, as far as the general assessment on the contracting policies. We felt we definitely did raise a red flag.”
It’s debatable whether the stronger language of the auditor’s draft report would have made much difference. The final report had little effect. The government expanded the advertising section into the sponsorship program and promoted the man in charge, Chuck Guit�.
The Ernst & Young “waterdown” is here
PACC Summary of Evidence.
Once they admit this shit, the attacks will be unrelenting.They will brazen it out and call in chits from the media.
Of course he’s lying Kate. He’s a Liberal.
Re the auditor’s comments:
“On reflection and with the benefit of hindsight, I would have made it stronger…” Translation: If I had realized that I was going to get dragged into this shit, I would never have put my name on that audit.
Well, Benoit Corbeil DID say on Radio Canada that there were accountants, as well as judges and engineers involved soooo….I’m guessing that Corbeil’s another one who’s smart enough to tell the truth.
If that’s the case, then let’s forget the accountants – and instead let’s subpoena some judges who received their appointments in Quebec, say between 2001 and 2003…)
I just gotta say, jail time all around. Fines, enforced public service, ruinous compensation paid back to the Canadian taxpayer before untimately deportation to an appropriate country like Afghanistan. Theives all of them, shame on all who fell for this line of shit or saw through it and participated.
Just completely unconscionable, we should have had, from this accounting, prime minister Manning as early as the mid nineties. If this crap had been allowed to surface in the toilet that IS Ottawa, instead of being lysolled over and added to….