I mean, that's how almost all government stuff is done. People talk like ministers are handling the procurement process on their own, but it's virtually always civil servants actually doing it all. That said, the government is ultimately responsible for what happens while its in power, so if there's anything shady going on then they'll rightly get the blame for it.
And it does make sense why CBSA wouldn't have a list of subcontractors on hand; they dealt with a primary contractor to avoid having to find a bunch of subcontractors. At the same time, there's no reason the contractor shouldn't be able to provide who the subcontractors were with little difficulty either.
I'm not entirely sure it is true that the CBSA would not have a list of subcontractors. I have limited experience working on government projects but when we had an assignment with DND everyone doing work had to be cleared by the DND. As a contractor we all did our security clearance and then anyone subcontracting for us on the project also had to do security clearance. I would assume the same process would be in place for the ArriveCan development.
We couldn't just pass along work or requirements to anyone else without the proper oversight.
I'm not entirely sure it is true that the CBSA would not have a list of subcontractors. I have limited experience working on government projects but when we had an assignment with DND everyone doing work had to be cleared by the DND. As a contractor we all did our security clearance and then anyone subcontracting for us on the project also had to do security clearance. I would assume the same process would be in place for the ArriveCan development.
We couldn't just pass along work or requirements to anyone else without the proper oversight.
I guess it depends what they were doing and what each contractor was engaged in. A company that designed the interface for instance, likely wouldn't be dealing with anything sensitive, so may not have needed security clearance. Or it's possible that the DND is much stricter than the CBSA (which wouldn't be surprising).
I don't know, if they had easy access to a list of subcontractors, why wouldn't they provide it? It's going to come out eventually anyway and this just makes them look more incompetent than they already look. I suppose if there's significant corruption going on, then it'd make sense to delay as much possible. But government corruption usually isn't quite that overt in Canada.
Never blame on malice what can be equally explained by incompetence.
I am a federal IT project manager.
Security checks are ONLY required if the person is going to be accessing private data or national defence information. I have seen projects where we have gotten around security checks by giving "fake" data to a contractor and saying "we need to process data like this". In cases like this, where no security checks are required, the contractor and sub-contract who can sub-sub-contract all they want. And unless it is stipulated in the contract, they are under no obligation to tell us who they sub-contracted to.
The bigger question that should be asked is - why was this contracted out at all? Every large contracted out project has been a MASSIVE waste of taxpayer money. Phoenix. Consolidating all federal email onto Bell servers. ArriveCan. I was invited to a meeting where I was told that company X was being brought in to replace system Y. I said that X's software was the wrong product and that my team could write a replacement for half the cost of their software + consultants. I was promptly asked to leave the meeting. Apparently my boss's boss had recommended the product to senior management. Nothing nefarious. No relatives in the company. No kickbacks involved. Just stupid management making stupid decisions based on ego. The cost savings promised by my boss's boss ended up being a cost nightmare as company X's software did not meet our needs. And yet we continued to renew the contract for three years because we had no other option.
How do these things spiral out of control? Same as Phoenix.
Let's say the government is contracting out making 100 submarine sandwiches. They then have to make out a scoring method. Basically "Do you have experience cutting bread? 5 points.", "Do you have experience slicing cheese?" 10 points, etc, etc,. At the outset, you set a minimum passing grade. If 10 companies get a passing grade, then it goes to the lowest bidder.
Now, let's say IBM is the lowest bidder. IBM won't make much money on the low bid. The big money is on contract renewals. Or contract amendments. Or add-on contracts. Let's say we have reached the end of the contract and IBM only has 30 sandwiches and those sandwiches don't hold together and for some reason the Australian contractor slathered them with Vegemite. Okay. Now we are in a big mess. We could embarrassingly scrap the whole project. Or we can offer a new contract to fix the project. But now IBM is sitting pretty. Not only did they get the highest score last time, but they know this sandwich game. They have even more experience. IT DOES NOT MATTER THAT THEY F'ED UP THE FIRST CONTRACT. THEY ARE THE HANDS ON FAVORITE TO GET THE NEW CONTRACT. There is no negative scoring for "Do you have experience completely wasting taxpayer money?"
From what I understand happened with ArriveCan was that once "GCStrategies" got the initial contract, each contract for updates got more expensive. "GCStrategies" had subcontractors that knew the code, knew the development tools, etc.. So they could basically set their price. What was CBSA gonna do? Hand a pile of code over to a new company to try to understand from scratch? I mean it's possible, but that takes developer time, so it increases the price. And given that the company had knowledge of the software, they would always get high scoring on any evaluation grid. So requests for updates almost always goes back to the original vendor. And once you are tied to them, they know the've got you and they take advantage of it.
If you think that somebody slipped some money to someone on the sly, that is nearly impossible. And pointless. There are completely legal ways to fleece the government. There are so many checks and balances to prevent money from "going missing". First thing the Harper Conservatives did was bring in hundreds of FI/AUs (Financial auditors) to check and double check that all the books add up and nothing goes missing. I don't mean like CERB money going out and nobody knows where it went; that's not the FI's job. They just look at procurement. To avoid something like the Chretien "Sponsorship Scandal". Which, frustratingly, did not involve a procurement department. The malfeasance was at the politician level, not with any government department. So all of these auditors brought in would not prevent another similar scandal because it is a different pot of money. Anyway, I believe that ThinkOn Inc saying they didn't work on the app is likely CBSA providing bad information, not that that money walked out the door somewhere.
Last edited by DevilsAdvocate; 11-15-2022 at 09:07 PM.
The Following 16 Users Say Thank You to DevilsAdvocate For This Useful Post:
Never blame on malice what can be equally explained by incompetence.
I am a federal IT project manager.
Security checks are ONLY required if the person is going to be accessing private data or national defence information. I have seen projects where we have gotten around security checks by giving "fake" data to a contractor and saying "we need to process data like this". In cases like this, where no security checks are required, the contractor and sub-contract who can sub-sub-contract all they want. And unless it is stipulated in the contract, they are under no obligation to tell us who they sub-contracted to.
The bigger question that should be asked is - why was this contracted out at all? Every large contracted out project has been a MASSIVE waste of taxpayer money. Phoenix. Consolidating all federal email onto Bell servers. ArriveCan. I was invited to a meeting where I was told that company X was being brought in to replace system Y. I said that it was the wrong product and that my team could write a replacement for half the cost. I was promptly asked to leave the meeting. Apparently my boss's boss had recommended the product. Nothing nefarious. No relatives in the company. No kickbacks involved. Just stupid management making stupid decisions based on ego. The promised cost savings ended up being a cost nightmare as company X's software did not meet our needs. And yet we continued to renew the contract.
How do these things spiral out of control? Same as Phoenix.
Let's say the government is contracting out making 100 submarine sandwiches. They then have to make out a scoring method. Basically "Do you have experience cutting bread? 5 points.", "Do you have experience slicing cheese?" 10 points, etc, etc,. At the outset, you set a minimum passing grade. If 10 companies get a passing grade, then it goes to the lowest bidder.
Now, let's say IBM is the lowest bidder. IBM won't make much money on the low bid. The big money is on contract renewals. Let's say we have reached the end of the contract and IBM only has 30 sandwiches and those sandwiches don't hold together and for some reason the Australian contractor slathered them with Vegemite. Okay. Now we are in a big mess. We could embarrassingly scrap the whole project. Or we can offer a new contract to fix the project. But now IBM is sitting pretty. Not only did they get the highest score last time, but they know this sandwich game. They have even more experience. IT DOES NOT MATTER THAT THEY F'ED UP THE FIRST CONTRACT. THEY ARE THE HANDS ON FAVORITE TO GET THE NEW CONTRACT. There is no negative scoring for "Do you have experience completely wasting taxpayer money?"
From what I understand happened with ArriveCan was that once "GCStrategies" got the initial contract, each contract for updates got more expensive. "GCStrategies" had subcontractors that knew the code, knew the development tools, etc.. So they could basically set their price. What was CBSA gonna do? Hand a pile of code over to a new company to try to understand from scratch? I mean it's possible, but that takes developer time, so it increases the price. And given that the company had knowledge of the software, they would always get high scoring on any evaluation grid. So requests for updates almost always goes back to the original vendor. And once you are tied to them, they know the've got you and they take advantage of it.
If you think that somebody slipped some money to someone on the sly, that is nearly impossible. And pointless. There are completely legal ways to fleece the government. There are so many checks and balances to prevent money from "going missing". First thing the Conservatives did was bring in hundreds of FI (Financial auditors) to check and double check that all the books add up and nothing goes missing. I don't mean like CERB money going out and nobody knows where it went; that's not the FI's job. They just look at procurement. To avoid something like the Chretien "Sponsorship Scandal". Which, frustratingly, did not involve a procurement department. The malfeasance was at the politician level, not with any government department. So all of these auditors brought in would not prevent another similar scandal because it is a different pot of money. Anyway, I believe that ThinkOn Inc saying they didn't work on the app is likely CBSA providing bad information, not that that money walked out the door somewhere.
I dont know, I dont think anyone 'Fleeced the Government.'
I find it entirely more likely that Government officials parked public cash in places where particular officials could easily 'redeem it' later...minus the vig.
__________________ The Beatings Shall Continue Until Morale Improves!
This Post Has Been Distilled for the Eradication of Seemingly Incurable Sadness.
If you are flammable and have legs, you are never blocking a Fire Exit. - Mitch Hedberg
Never blame on malice what can be equally explained by incompetence.
I am a federal IT project manager.
Security checks are ONLY required if the person is going to be accessing private data or national defence information. I have seen projects where we have gotten around security checks by giving "fake" data to a contractor and saying "we need to process data like this". In cases like this, where no security checks are required, the contractor and sub-contract who can sub-sub-contract all they want. And unless it is stipulated in the contract, they are under no obligation to tell us who they sub-contracted to.
The bigger question that should be asked is - why was this contracted out at all? Every large contracted out project has been a MASSIVE waste of taxpayer money. Phoenix. Consolidating all federal email onto Bell servers. ArriveCan. I was invited to a meeting where I was told that company X was being brought in to replace system Y. I said that X's software was the wrong product and that my team could write a replacement for half the cost of their software + consultants. I was promptly asked to leave the meeting. Apparently my boss's boss had recommended the product to senior management. Nothing nefarious. No relatives in the company. No kickbacks involved. Just stupid management making stupid decisions based on ego. The cost savings promised by my boss's boss ended up being a cost nightmare as company X's software did not meet our needs. And yet we continued to renew the contract for three years because we had no other option.
How do these things spiral out of control? Same as Phoenix.
Let's say the government is contracting out making 100 submarine sandwiches. They then have to make out a scoring method. Basically "Do you have experience cutting bread? 5 points.", "Do you have experience slicing cheese?" 10 points, etc, etc,. At the outset, you set a minimum passing grade. If 10 companies get a passing grade, then it goes to the lowest bidder.
Now, let's say IBM is the lowest bidder. IBM won't make much money on the low bid. The big money is on contract renewals. Or contract amendments. Or add-on contracts. Let's say we have reached the end of the contract and IBM only has 30 sandwiches and those sandwiches don't hold together and for some reason the Australian contractor slathered them with Vegemite. Okay. Now we are in a big mess. We could embarrassingly scrap the whole project. Or we can offer a new contract to fix the project. But now IBM is sitting pretty. Not only did they get the highest score last time, but they know this sandwich game. They have even more experience. IT DOES NOT MATTER THAT THEY F'ED UP THE FIRST CONTRACT. THEY ARE THE HANDS ON FAVORITE TO GET THE NEW CONTRACT. There is no negative scoring for "Do you have experience completely wasting taxpayer money?"
From what I understand happened with ArriveCan was that once "GCStrategies" got the initial contract, each contract for updates got more expensive. "GCStrategies" had subcontractors that knew the code, knew the development tools, etc.. So they could basically set their price. What was CBSA gonna do? Hand a pile of code over to a new company to try to understand from scratch? I mean it's possible, but that takes developer time, so it increases the price. And given that the company had knowledge of the software, they would always get high scoring on any evaluation grid. So requests for updates almost always goes back to the original vendor. And once you are tied to them, they know the've got you and they take advantage of it.
If you think that somebody slipped some money to someone on the sly, that is nearly impossible. And pointless. There are completely legal ways to fleece the government. There are so many checks and balances to prevent money from "going missing". First thing the Harper Conservatives did was bring in hundreds of FI/AUs (Financial auditors) to check and double check that all the books add up and nothing goes missing. I don't mean like CERB money going out and nobody knows where it went; that's not the FI's job. They just look at procurement. To avoid something like the Chretien "Sponsorship Scandal". Which, frustratingly, did not involve a procurement department. The malfeasance was at the politician level, not with any government department. So all of these auditors brought in would not prevent another similar scandal because it is a different pot of money. Anyway, I believe that ThinkOn Inc saying they didn't work on the app is likely CBSA providing bad information, not that that money walked out the door somewhere.
This passes the sniff test for me. I have spent an entire career explaining technology to managers who have no idea, only to see them hire expensive contractors who also have no idea what they're doing. It's hard to hire competent contractors when you don't know how to do the job yourself.
prominent businessman in Toronto’s Chinese community is the subject of two separate investigations involving foreign interference, sources tell Global News, both related to a series of briefings and memos that Canadian security officials allegedly gave to Prime Minister Justin Trudeau beginning in January.The Canadian Security Intelligence Service has investigated Wei Chengyi for his alleged role in a covert scheme that facilitated large-fund transfers meant to advance Beijing’s interests in Canada’s 2019 federal election, sources said.
According to RCMP sources, national security investigators are also probing Wei for possible links to several properties in Toronto and Vancouver allegedly used as so-called Chinese government “police stations,” which are believed to secretly host agents from China’s Ministry of Public Security (MPS.)
Quote:
Global News reported last week that early this year, sources say Canadian intelligence officials started briefing Justin Trudeau and several cabinet ministers that the People’s Republic of China has allegedly been targeting Canada with a vast campaign of foreign interference, including attempts to influence the 2019 federal election.
One of the specific allegations detailed the funding of a clandestine network that involved at least 11 federal candidates running in the contest, according to Global News sources.
The briefing did not identify the politicians in the running, but Global News independently confirmed through separate sources that members of the alleged network — which sources say include federal campaign staffers — represented both Liberal and Conservative parties.
Quote:
Sources aware of investigations into the alleged covert funding methods that CSIS believes the Toronto consulate uses allege that Wei and the organization he’s tied to, the CTCCO, acted as intermediaries in the covert funding activity in 2019.
The sources alleged Wei and CTCCO transferred about $250,000 from the consulate to an Ontario MPP and a federal candidate staffer, who in turn distributed the funds to the 11 or more candidates and other campaign staffers.
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
I missed some of the news, but, is there any indication that the authorities know who the MP’s are and who the middleman is?
Are any of them MPs for sure? The Global article above just says candidates and staffers. Doesn't really indicate if any were elected in 2019.
__________________
@PR_NHL
The @NHLFlames are the first team to feature four players each with 50+ points within their first 45 games of a season since the Penguins in 1995-96 (Ron Francis, Mario Lemieux, Jaromir Jagr, Tomas Sandstrom).
Surprised no discussion about the Xi going after Trudeau publicly at the G20 for leaking their discussion.
I suspect Trudeau is probably actually happy with it as being the guy China hates probably plays well politically at home.
The only ones siding with the communist dictator on this are the far right "media" and their followers. Pretty much everyone who understands reality knows what Xi was doing here.
The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to Fuzz For This Useful Post:
Now, let's say IBM is the lowest bidder. IBM won't make much money on the low bid. The big money is on contract renewals. Or contract amendments. Or add-on contracts. Let's say we have reached the end of the contract and IBM only has 30 sandwiches and those sandwiches don't hold together and for some reason the Australian contractor slathered them with Vegemite. Okay. Now we are in a big mess. We could embarrassingly scrap the whole project. Or we can offer a new contract to fix the project. But now IBM is sitting pretty. Not only did they get the highest score last time, but they know this sandwich game. They have even more experience. IT DOES NOT MATTER THAT THEY F'ED UP THE FIRST CONTRACT. THEY ARE THE HANDS ON FAVORITE TO GET THE NEW CONTRACT. There is no negative scoring for "Do you have experience completely wasting taxpayer money?"
This is very much in line with my experience bidding on and doing contract work for the federal government. In my area they have multi-year supply arrangements. The scoring for the bids boils down to 2 criteria: past experience doing the same type of work for the federal government and price. So companies do low bids they lose money on to get on the contract the first time, and after that they score high on the experience side even if they do poor quality work.
Surprised no discussion about the Xi going after Trudeau publicly at the G20 for leaking their discussion.
I suspect Trudeau is probably actually happy with it as being the guy China hates probably plays well politically at home.
It’s pretty funny to hear him talk about being open with the Canadian people.
__________________
The Delhi police have announced the formation of a crack team dedicated to nabbing the elusive 'Monkey Man' and offered a reward for his -- or its -- capture.
The Following User Says Thank You to monkeyman For This Useful Post:
I love the "Scolds" line.. More like 'whines' while Trudeau DGAF.
Can you imagine PP holding his ground with Xi? Hilarious.
It's funny how differently we can read these things. It would be also interesting - though difficult - to know how much filter the translator has in choice of words and tone.
To me, it looks like Xi is the one that DGAF. He knew the cameras were there, and went way outside of diplomatic norms to air a grievance.
Trudeau looks to me like a young child eager to show his teacher or parent his latest coloring masterpiece, only to have it dismissed and pointed out that he coloured outside of the lines.
I have zero love for the Chinese government, but it's pretty clear Xi doesn't take Trudeau or Canada seriously. It's all well and good to 'stand up to the bad guy', but they are the world's second largest economy and our second largest trading partner.
I'm ready to admit my opinion of Trudeau may be colouring my take here... I think he's a twit and, for example, I wouldn't trust him to park my car
The Following User Says Thank You to you&me For This Useful Post:
It's funny how differently we can read these things. It would be also interesting - though difficult - to know how much filter the translator has in choice of words and tone.
To me, it looks like Xi is the one that DGAF. He knew the cameras were there, and went way outside of diplomatic norms to air a grievance.
Trudeau looks to me like a young child eager to show his teacher or parent his latest coloring masterpiece, only to have it dismissed and pointed out that he coloured outside of the lines.
I have zero love for the Chinese government, but it's pretty clear Xi doesn't take Trudeau or Canada seriously. It's all well and good to 'stand up to the bad guy', but they are the world's second largest economy and our second largest trading partner.
I'm ready to admit my opinion of Trudeau may be colouring my take here... I think he's a twit and, for example, I wouldn't trust him to park my car
The bolded part disgusts me.
We, The West, have facilitated the ####hole Chinese government. Honestly it is disgusting.
It is so tough to get away from and purchase things that are not built in China, but more and more I am trying to do just that. It is only a small gesture and I don't think that old UCB will have a negative affect on China, but maybe more and more nations will look to alternatives to move away from this Human Rights nightmare of a country.
__________________
Captain James P. DeCOSTE, CD, 18 Sep 1993
Corporal Jean-Marc H. BECHARD, 6 Aug 1993
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sliver
Just ignore me...I'm in a mood today.
The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to undercoverbrother For This Useful Post:
The Chinese government has scary levels of control over our institutions. We will never address it properly, as it's easily shut-down as being xenophobic.
The Justice institute of BC(who trains almost all municipal cops, and many RCMP departments) for an example gets a large % of its budget from the Chinese government. Via the thousands of Chinese(and other nationalities) police officers it trains as part of its international program. Again nothing necessarily nefarious, however everyone knows who pays their bills.
I love the "Scolds" line.. More like 'whines' while Trudeau DGAF.
Can you imagine PP holding his ground with Xi? Hilarious.
I am no PP fan, but you are saying your guy at bat is the one that said he "admires China's basic dictatorship" versus the attack bulldog of the conservative party? It's the one thing he does well, to not care how he looks while relentlessly attacking.
Just bizarre comments, but I guess when you're on a Team you can be conditioned to believe anything.
