Public Statement from Sheila Fraser, Auditor General of Canada, regarding news reports about the audit of the G8 Legacy Infrastructure Fund:
We will not release or comment on our audit report on the G8 Legacy Infrastructure Fund. 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.
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.
We work very hard to keep our reports confidential before they are tabled. 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. Sometimes during the process of fact validation, additional information is brought to our attention. Only the final report that is tabled in Parliament represents our audit findings and conclusions.
This is going to really hurt the Conservatives. They have been dripped on bit by bit and survived so far, but this caution by Fraser will not soften the blow this time. It's kind of funny, (I mean funny strange, not funny haha) that contempt of Parliament, and all that nonesense about coalitions passed the publics sniff test, but this leaked and imperfect source, bearing Fraser's imprimateur will likely fail the test.
I actually think the media have been very sloppy with this story. Too many are reporting on this as if it were true and undeniable fact, when it appears that in fact it could very well be a fake.
At best, even if the document is real, the final version that will be released will almost surely be different than this draft version, thus reducing the credibility of the reporters who've been pushing this story to nothing.
At worst, the document was completely fabricated by some nefarious Liberal/Dipper. And we all remember what happened to Dan Rather.
We have a new draft provided to us by a Conservative supporter. But please read the “note to reader” here:
http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/CanadaVotes/News/2011/04/11/17953826.html
“provided to us by a Conservative supporter”
How is that verified?
“There are indications that an early draft of this report may have been released by someone outside our Office.”
How can it be, that the leaker was someone “outside” the AG's Office? Who else, besides the people who work in her Office, have access to those drafts? Are copies of the draft sent outside the Office? To whom?
And when exactly did the CP's Joan Bryden get to see the first draft of the report? Why doesn't she reveal her source, identified in the first draft of the Globe & Mail story I read earlier today as a supporter of an opposition party?
Gabby, the draft of the report would have been circulated to a number of government departments for their comments. This is typically what happens when any audit opinion is given. The person/organization being audited is given the opportunity to respond to any findings and those findings would then be redrafted to reflect that response. I understand that in the case of the AG, each draft is individually numbered so that it can be identified and all drafts have to be returned within a number of days of the final report being issued.
The problem in this case is that the January draft may be completely fictitious. The only person who admits to seeing it is Bryden, and whether she saw an original draft or a doctored version is anybody's guess.