steveintoronto
Superstar
The irony of your angst is that it's about to bite you back. It's not that I'm defending the OntLibs, it's what other Cons are on record as stating, and how they're about to play the 'reshuffled deck' their way on privatization (something I agree with, btw. I'm a Conservative, and believe in Private Initiative. I just don't trust witch burners and hysterics to get it right):No, it is clear cut. It’s an accounting issue. Our independent accounting watchdog called major bullshit on Wynne’s numbers. Then a journalist said no, it’s all politics. Personally, I believe the Auditor General over the journo. Because, you know, accountant opines on accounting. But if you’re really in doubt, check out all the boxes and arrows in the structure Wynne tried to use to get the additional FHP debt off the books. It’s Byzantine, to say the least.
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/can...os-new-hydro-accounting-could-cost-taxpayers/[...]
‘Don’t tell the Auditor-General what we’re doing’
What is clear is that, in devising the Fair Hydro Plan, the government relied heavily on consultants, including three of the world’s “Big Four” accounting firms: KPMG, Deloitte and Ernst & Young. It also hired Blakes, a law firm. According to the Auditor-General, the government paid these advisers a total of $2-million for their services. In a statement, the Treasury Board Secretariat emphasized that work was part of the government’s efforts to “ensure due diligence was completed.”
Their opinions and advice carried the day. Sophie Kiwala, a Liberal MPP and member of the estimates committee, said on Oct. 24: “Our plan has been approved by the peers of the Auditor-General at some of Canada’s top accounting firms, including Ernst & Young, KPMG and Deloitte.”
KPMG’s team, composed of more than half a dozen of the firm’s partners, was led by Michel Picard. In one 32-page document provided to The Globe by the government, KPMG itemized and refuted the Auditor-General’s objections to the new accounting practice. “The concerns expressed by the AGO result from a difference of opinion in the application of professional judgment,” KPMG spokesperson Lisa Papas told The Globe in a statement. As the auditor of IESO’s books, the firm also signed off on the application of these new accounting standards, just as it had under the IESO’s previous accounting methods. “We would like to emphasize that the standards provide a choice,” the firm said in a statement. “There has always been the ability to choose between two alternatives.”
In the past three years, KPMG earned between $86,000 and $92,000 in annual fees for auditing IESO’s books. Last year, it earned $652,000 for its advice on the new accounting policy.
Did KPMG’s dual role as auditor and consultant represent a conflict of interest? “You might say that their ability to be impartial and effective auditors had become compromised,” said Randy Hillier, a Conservative MPP who sits on the public accounts committee. “Why would you not [sign off] when you’re getting such a significant bundle of cash?”
Ms. Lysyk told the same committee that firms should not be advocating for particular accounting treatments on a client’s behalf while auditing the client’s books.
Forensic accountant Al Rosen said that, generally speaking, it’s not difficult to hire consultants to provide favourable accounting opinions in Canada, in part because standards are so elastic. “You can go to any of the public accounting firms and get them to render an opinion on whatever you want,” he said. “The ethics have gone all to hell.”[...]
Yes, the same "Al Rosen" doing the "Line by Line" dance with his partner.
Ah yes, there's a quote worth keeping.it’s not difficult to hire consultants to provide favourable accounting opinions in Canada, in part because standards are so elastic. “You can go to any of the public accounting firms and get them to render an opinion on whatever you want,” he said.
Now..."off the books" privatization. Shall we begin?
The great debt deceit: how Gordon Brown cooked the nation’s books
https://www.spectator.co.uk/2008/09/the-great-debt-deceit-how-gordon-brown-cooked-the-nations-books/Amid global financial turmoil, and on the eve of Labour’s conference, Fraser Nelson and Peter Hoskin reveal the true extent of the nation’s debt — equivalent to £26,100 for each British household — and Brown’s scandalous manipulation of the Private Finance Initiative
[...]
Davis was understandably baffled. The Private Finance Initiative (PFI) was a controversial, but little-used mechanism established by Norman Lamont to privatise specific construction projects. But it meant something much more to New Labour. Officially, the scheme could be a beacon for the Third Way: a means of injecting the ethos of the private sector into the sluggish public sector, and an opportunity to get projects completed quickly and efficiently. Unofficially — and this is what Mr Brown grasped from the off, and what Mr Robinson was hinting at — PFI was an incredibly convenient way of concealing the true extent of public debt. Rather than pay upfront, the government promised to make fixed payments in each project over a period of about 30 years — keeping the whole thing off the books. PFI was a wizard’s cloak of invisibility which could be thrown around expensive new projects.
[...]
Edit: Lest the irony of Lamont's name being used thus is lost:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_LamontNorman Stewart Hughson Lamont, Baron Lamont of Lerwick, PC (born 8 May 1942) is a British politician and former ConservativeMP for Kingston-upon-Thames. He is best known for his period serving as Chancellor of the Exchequer, from 1990 until 1993. He was created a life peer in 1998. Lamont is a supporter of the Eurosceptic organisation Leave Means Leave.[1]
[...] Lamont served in successive governments under Margaret Thatcher [...]
Coming to a reactionary right of centre regime near you perhaps? The Brits (well, some) have learned lessons...the hard way in many instances, but transit projects especially in London are now showing models that are not perfect, but still exemplary in many respects, and lessons to share with the world.
For some odd reason, I don't see even a scintilla of that ability in the pathetic excuse for Conservatives now ensconced at Queen's Park, and Ontario is about to repeat the same dreadful mistakes others have already learned from.
There's no defence for the laggard Libs now gone from QP. But there's no relief either from the clowns painting themselves in different colours, while performing the same sleight of hand tricks, hiding the blame behind their backs with one, while pointing with the other.
Can you spell 'Ferris Wheels'?
It rhymes with 'Private Finance' for the intellectually challenged.
Last edited: