What audits?

The Conservative strategy is becoming clear. It is to tear down the Chinese wall Martin has erected between his own government and Jean Chretien's -- not by making unverifiable accusations about what Martin knew or didn't know as Finance minister, but by reminding people of what he did or didn't do as Prime Minister. The last election was about the Chretien government's misdeeds; the next one will be about the failure of the Martin government to "get to the bottom" of the scandal. The Conservatives will try to show that in fact they have been doing all they can to avoid lifting too many rocks, while giving the appearance of doing so. The Gomery inquiry will close in remorselessly on the Chretien clique. The Conservatives will concentrate their fire on Martin. Monday Stephen Harper took dead aim at Martin's "don't call the election until the Gomery inquiry has finished" line -- an appealing one to the voters -- by pointedly reminding the House that, in fact, it was Martin who called the last election before either the Public Accounts committee or Gomery had had a chance to do their job, and it was the Liberals on the Public Accounts committee who ensured it did not get to hear Jean Brault's testimony before then. Tuesday Harper turned his attention to the two internal "audits" the Liberals commissioned of their contributors: another brick in the wall, as it were. Long ago I pointed out that the two accounting firms commissioned to perform the audits, Pricewaterhouse Coopers and Delitte & Touche, are also two of the Liberals' largest contributors -- a peculiar choice for a party anxious to redeem its reputation. But in fact these weren't even audits. A Conservative release (not posted on their website, so far as I can tell) points out:

Pricewaterhouse Coopers indicated its report does “not constitute an audit” because of the parameters outlined by the Liberal Party.  Consequently, it is “to be used solely for your information and is not to be used for any other purpose.” (cover letter) Pricewaterhouse Coopers complained about lack of transparency, with comments such as: “Not included in the above amounts are disbursements totalling approximately $58,000”; “Supporting documentation relating to these disbursements was unavailable for review.” (p. 6) Deloitte and Touche refered to its report as "a forensic accounting review" – not an audit. Deloite and Touche said they had to “rely on [the Liberal Party] for the accuracy and completeness of the files” (p. 4), and complained that “the supporting documents did not always provide a detailed description of the work performed.” (p. 7)  Furthermore, they pointed out that they were only able to review money that went through four specific bank accounts. (p. 7)  Both reports cover only the period from 1996 to 2003, and cover only the parties named in the 2004 Auditor General’s report. Moreover, they did not include money to riding associations, which is precisely where all the Sponsorship money was funnelled.

And of course, they can only cover contributions for which a paper trail exists, which would seem to exclude envelopes full of cash. For more, much more on this, see Matt Braaten's analysis here and here. ADDENDUM: Here's someone else who's less than impressed with Liberal openness. Perhaps he still has memories of having his staff threatened by Chretien's handlers.