Toronto bound

Paul Coffin's testimony has been unsealed, and the first thing we learn is that the funny business in federal advertising contracts wasn't restricted to Quebec-based agencies, or national unity:

A year later, Coffin's firm was hired for a campaign to promote an agreement between Ottawa and Quebec to increase funding for health care. But the work was actually completed by the Toronto company Gingko Group. Coffin said his company was the official agency on paper because Gingko, which was favoured by the Privy Council Office, had not won the contract through a competitive process.

That scurrying sound you hear is "Liberal-friendly" agencies across the country running for cover... OOPS: Okay, this isn't strictly speaking news. It's all described in the Auditor General's November 2003 report:

The Canada Health Care campaign was launched in September 2000 to inform Canadians about a recent federal-provincial agreement to increase funding for health care. The Privy Council Office (PCO) was responsible for the content of the advertising campaign, but the Canada Information Office (CIO), at the time the Government of Canada's operational arm for corporate communications, was responsible for managing the campaign itself. The PCO explained to us that it wanted a particular agency, The Gingko Group, to design and produce the campaign because the agency had produced a similar campaign for a provincial government and had been highly recommended. However, Gingko had not been selected as an assigned agency for the CIO through a competitive process. Contracting rules allow for sole-sourcing in emergencies or when only one supplier is qualified. CCSB chose to create an arrangement that hid the true substance of the transaction. It issued a contract for $619,000 to Communication Coffin, which had been selected in 1997 for sponsorship and advertising activities. There was no evidence in the file to suggest that Coffin was to do any of the work. Coffin subcontracted all of the work to Gingko. The official who managed this file could not provide us with a rationale or documentation to explain why CCSB did not issue the contract to Gingko for the work. The file shows that the Canada Information Office and the PCO dealt directly with Gingko as the main creative agency on the campaign and that Gingko did all the work (planning, strategy, creative, production, and so on). There is no sign that Coffin, the firm with the contract for this campaign, did any work on it. Bids not obtained as required by the contract. In order for Coffin to subcontract work valued at more than $25,000, it was required to obtain three bids and to justify its choice of subcontractor to the CIO. There is no evidence in the file to indicate that this was done. Unnecessary commission paid for subcontracted work. Gingko, the agency that was actually developing the campaign, subcontracted production work and submitted the bills to Coffin after adding the standard commission of 17.65 percent on the subcontracted work. Coffin billed the government for reimbursement of Gingko's invoice and added another 17.65 percent commission for itself. In the end, Coffin received $78,400 in commissions for subcontracting work to Gingko, a cost that would have been avoided if CCSB had awarded the contract directly to Gingko, who did all the work. Nothing in the file indicated that it had ever been the intention of the CIO or CCSB that Coffin do the work. In order to circumvent requirements for competitive bidding and ensure that Gingko would do the work, CCSB created a contract designed to hide the true substance of the transaction.

Still, it's worth some follow-up, no? As Peter Trueman used to sign off, "that's not news, but that, too, is reality." FOLLOW THE MONEY: Gingko is a contributor to the Liberal Party ($13,400 from 1996 to 2003), but a piker compared to Vickers & Benson ($102,475), Palmer-Jarvis ($125,490), Allard-Johnson ($145,645) and others among the tête-carrée advertising community. MORE COFFIN-NAILS: Government procurement rules flouted, Coffin testifies Ad man says sponsorship boss Chuck Guite requested false bills Ad exec says he helped hide sponsorship spending Guité asked for fake invoices, ad man testifies