Pinocchio’s nose.

Still on Sheila Fraser’s leaked report into the G8/G20 funding, which by definition is scandalous (money for border infrastructure was used to buy toilets, build a G8 centre that was never used, plant trees and beautify areas far from where the summits were held). 

The Conservative front man on this issue was John Baird, since Harper was/is busy primping for tonight’s debates.

“I told you what was not in the report. I don’t have the authority to release subsequent drafts. I haven’t seen the final draft,” Baird said. Which didn’t stop Baird from claiming the final draft was ‘substantially different’ that the leaked one and then leaking his own draft of the report to CTV Bureau Chief, Robert Fife.

Baird also said that “common” for versions of reports to be changed substantially. In this case, however, according to those who’ve actually seen it, like correspondent Greg Weston, there is very little in the final report that’s different from the original one.

Overall, Baird manages to give a whole new dictionary meaning to the word ‘transparent’: “We are very comfortable to ask for the report to be made public so people can come to their own conclusions and their own judgments. I think that is being open. I think that is being incredibly transparent.”

I suppose that leaking a report while he spins its contents is Baird’s version of transparency.  But we’re told by those in the know that the report has a section named: “The funding request was not made in a transparent manner.”

All I can think of now whenever I see John Baird is Pinocchio’s nose.


Peggy’s regular blog posts on writing and getting published will resume on May 3rd, after the Canadian election.


This entry was posted in Election 2011 and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to Pinocchio’s nose.

  1. Beth McColl says:

    Great minds think alike; just yesterday while looking at a political cartoon, I made that same remark about Stephen Harper’s nose…


  2. Brian Aguinaga says:

    There are three things about this whole AG affair that makes the Conservatives, not just Baird, look incredibly bad.

    1. That the report (draft or otherwise) criticizes them for potentially “illegal” spending practices.

    2. That Baird has seen any version of the report because no elected official is permitted to see AG reports before they are tabled in parliament after they are delivered to the Speaker (which has not and cannot happen until the House sits again after the election).

    3. That they have taken credit for praise the AG gave to the former Liberal government over unrelated spending practices.

    Rather than “transparency”, this is obfuscation and mis-direction worthy of a master illusionist.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s