2011 Canadian Election Thread

[Slava]

Originally Posted by calculoso

You mean this part?

"The audit found that Parliament was given seven separate funding requests for 14 different federal organizations in four different packages of submissions. The way the information was presented made it hard for MPs to know the total estimated price tag for the summits, Wiersema said."

That explained why the estimate was $1.1B, not for the actual real costs...

Right, in other words the detractors who estimated the $1.1B had good reason to be unsure of the amount. Seems totally logical to me.

[calculoso]

Originally Posted by Slava

Right, in other words the detractors who estimated the $1.1B had good reason to be unsure of the amount. Seems totally logical to me.

Right... but being unsure about the prediction does not automatically mean that there is no traceability for what was actually spent, which is what you implied.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by calculoso

Right... but being unsure about the prediction does not automatically mean that there is no traceability for what was actually spent, which is what you implied.

I didn't imply it though, its from the AG report. There is no paper trail for how these projects were chosen.

[calculoso]

Originally Posted by Slava

I didn't imply it though, its from the AG report. There is no paper trail for how these projects were chosen.

Not what you said:

"Maybe you didn't read far enough into the article to get to the part where the AG also said it was hard to know how much money was being spent because of the way the bills were put together?"

It is clear how much was spent, after the fact. I agree that the transparency about what was going to be chosen was missing... but that is not what you said and not the part that I am taking issue with.

[crazy_eoj]

I'm confused... they had 1.4 billion of spending approved and then spent just over half of that and somehow this a bad thing...?

[calculoso]

Originally Posted by crazy_eoj

I'm confused... they had 1.4 billion of spending approved and then spent just over half of that and somehow this a bad thing...?

If they had told everyone how the 1.4B would be spent and over-estimated, then this would be a very good thing. It's the fuzzy and secretive nature that is being questioned. The "just trust us" doesn't work, even if the spending was done for legitimate reasons.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by calculoso

Not what you said:

"Maybe you didn't read far enough into the article to get to the part where the AG also said it was hard to know how much money was being spent because of the way the bills were put together?"

It is clear how much was spent, after the fact. I agree that the transparency about what was going to be chosen was missing... but that is not what you said and not the part that I am taking issue with.

Fair enough, but what I meant was that it was hard to know how much was being spent alluding to the estimate by the opposition parties. Its semantics, but meaning the same thing.

Originally Posted by calculoso

If they had told everyone how the 1.4B would be spent and over-estimated, then this would be a very good thing. It's the fuzzy and secretive nature that is being questioned. The "just trust us" doesn't work, even if the spending was done for legitimate reasons.

We agree here entirely. Its just horrible optics and not the process that should be followed. You could never run things this way in a private corporation either; imagine how fast you would be fired and have actions taken against you if you and a few colleagues made large spending decisions with no paper-trail? How long would you last if you went to the rest of the company and said that you "needed $50m" for one project and then used the funds for something entirely different?

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by Slava

Fair enough, but what I meant was that it was hard to know how much was being spent alluding to the estimate by the opposition parties. Its semantics, but meaning the same thing.



We agree here entirely. Its just horrible optics and not the process that should be followed. You could never run things this way in a private corporation either; imagine how fast you would be fired and have actions taken against you if you and a few colleagues made large spending decisions with no paper-trail? How long would you last if you went to the rest of the company and said that you "needed $50m" for one project and then used the funds for something entirely different?

Actually in my very limited experience this is not uncommon. At least with utilities like Fortus or B.C. Hydro the last thing you want is money left over. Just as long as what the money was allocated for is covered Managers will go out of their way to make sure every nickel is spent. They of course chose worthy expenditures because they could be called on it but, they do spend every penny.

I agree that the government was wrong not to communicate the budget changes as they happened. They should have made avaliable at least progress reports to a bi-partisan committee. They also appear to have overspent in this area judging from past expenditures.

I don't think this is comparable to the sponsership scandel though. These moneys went to municiple governments rather than businesses who supported the reigning government. There is also no evidence that Harper's government buried these costs. He simply didn't notify the opposition at the time. They are obviously open now for review.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Actually in my very limited experience this is not uncommon. At least with utilities like Fortus or B.C. Hydro the last thing you want is money left over. Just as long as what the money was allocated for is covered Managers will go out of their way to make sure every nickel is spent. They of course chose worthy expenditures because they could be called on it but, they do spend every penny.

I agree that the government was wrong not to communicate the budget changes as they happened. They should have made avaliable at least progress reports to a bi-partisan committee. They also appear to have overspent in this area judging from past expenditures.

I don't think this is comparable to the sponsership scandel though. These moneys went to municiple governments rather than businesses who supported the reigning government. There is also no evidence that Harper's government buried these costs. He simply didn't notify the opposition at the time. They are obviously open now for review.

No, its not the same as the sponsorship scandal because the government paid for work to be done here, and that work was completed. Its a totally different situation, for sure.

I do wonder how commonplace it is though. You suggest its not uncommon and I find that somewhat appalling. I get that divisions or departments use every penny. I find it hard to believe (if not totally unbelievable) that they would request funds for project A without intending to use them for that project and divert them to project E.

[Shazam]

Originally Posted by Slava

No, its not the same as the sponsorship scandal because the government paid for work to be done here, and that work was completed. Its a totally different situation, for sure.

I do wonder how commonplace it is though. You suggest its not uncommon and I find that somewhat appalling. I get that divisions or departments use every penny. I find it hard to believe (if not totally unbelievable) that they would request funds for project A without intending to use them for that project and divert them to project E.

Lolwut?

I'm working on a $500K project. Rest assured I will spend every penny. Along with the $120K "maintenance" fee budgeted for future years.

Why the deuce would I transfer leftover money to another project?

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Shazam

Lolwut?

I'm working on a $500K project. Rest assured I will spend every penny. Along with the $120K "maintenance" fee budgeted for future years.

Why the deuce would I transfer leftover money to another project?

Would you request funding for that project and spend it on something totally unrelated?

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by Slava

Would you request funding for that project and spend it on something totally unrelated?

But I think they did do some border up grade. They just over estimated the cost of the work by a lot. I imagine Harper estimated all the costs high in case something unforseen came up. They probably didn't want to ask for money twice. This way the government could spend as needed and still end up looking good by coming in under cost. Harper might not have had a clue what real expenses would come to.

The rule of thumb in the real world is spend all you've got or you might not get as much next time. In government I imagine the MP seen the excess as an opportunity to get some government money to those communities. His boss is Harper. If Harper was ok with it then why wouldn't you?

[Reggie Dunlop]

Originally Posted by calculoso

I doubt it.. He'd be at the bar looking for the closest camera to force himself in front of...

Pics or it didn't happen.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

But I think they did do some border up grade. They just over estimated the cost of the work by a lot. I imagine Harper estimated all the costs high in case something unforseen came up. They probably didn't want to ask for money twice. This way the government could spend as needed and still end up looking good by coming in under cost. Harper might not have had a clue what real expenses would come to.

The rule of thumb in the real world is spend all you've got or you might not get as much next time. In government I imagine the MP seen the excess as an opportunity to get some government money to those communities. His boss is Harper. If Harper was ok with it then why wouldn't you?

It's just what happened. MPs voted to allot money to reduce border congestion. Instead the money was diverted to the G8 pork barrel project. When they spent this money it is unknown how projects were chosen...no paper trail and no criteria. It's pretty pathetic really.

Like I said this should've been totally public during the campaign where politicians could be held accountable and answer questions.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Even if he just paid for the tickets to the game himself...and of course the flight, I have no problem with the "security" tab applied being paid for by taxpayers.

I mean, arent they already being paid? So they have to do it in another city...but im not sure how that increases the price of the guys already on the payroll. Also security would also fall to the Boston authorities in part as well....just part of hosting big events.

Yup, it's sunk cost.

[calculoso]

Originally Posted by Reggie Dunlop

Pics or it didn't happen.

Seriously?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XM76KN3HVv0

[Reggie Dunlop]

Originally Posted by calculoso

Seriously?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XM76KN3HVv0

That's not Bruins/Canucks. FAIL.

Politicians of all stripes cotton onto sporting events when its in their interests.

Issue is that you can't provide photos of Jack Layton in a bar cheering on the Canucks.

I'm not even Jack Layton supporter. Just asking you to back up your claim.

Oh yeah, you can't. Thought so.

WIN.

[calculoso]

Reggie... you're going insane... and I'm not going to fall for your trolling. Find another victim.

[Shazam]

Originally Posted by Slava

Would you request funding for that project and spend it on something totally unrelated?

Nope, but "unrelated" is a very nebulous term.

Virtually anything can be rationalized to be related.

Note that I don't support that, but it certainly does happen, esp. with gov't contracts where fees are inflated due to interacting with the gov't bureaucracy. I have to charge a $2500 meeting fee when I work with gov't entities because they LOVE meetings.

There is no real expectation from customers that projects go under budget. If they wanted to pay less they can negotiate before they sign the contract.

[Reggie Dunlop]

Originally Posted by calculoso

Reggie... you're going insane... and I'm not going to fall for your trolling. Find another victim.

I'm not sure what your original point was. Guy said he was going to watch a hockey game on television and you accused him of being a publicity hound.