# Liberals lie about Gun Registry Costs and Army Recrutiting  not working: AG rept



## Michael Dorosh (16 May 2006)

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20060516/ag_report_060516/20060516?hub=TopStories



> Liberals hid costs of gun registry, Fraser says
> Updated Tue. May. 16 2006 2:58 PM ET
> 
> CTV.ca News Staff
> ...



Not much new here, I guess. Goes hand in hand with complaints about the recruiting system we've discussed on this board. Think things will finally change? Recruiting in our regiment went up 300 percent with the prospect of overseas employment made public - but the applications get bogged down at CFRC.


----------



## Enzo (16 May 2006)

Recruiting process...  :brickwall:


----------



## a_majoor (16 May 2006)

The only corrective action that is going to make long term progress is identify the people who made these decisions and apply the full force of law against them; termination of employment for unsatisfactory performance of duties, suspension or repayment of benefits improperly earned during this time period, and the ultimate sanction; jail time for defrauding the taxpayer.

No written records of key meeting? No problem; *Obstruction of Justice*.

Since people were clearly not following the "system", proposals to fix the system are beyond the point. Get rid of the offending people, give them unsatisfactory performance ratings in their letter of termination to prevent them from being hired by any other government agency or company that wishes to deal with the government and they can go flip burgers or drive cabs.


----------



## Wookilar (16 May 2006)

I'm not so sure the issue lies at the CFRC's themselves. It seems that a great number of questions fielded here are related to the time required for the security clearances required (enhanced reliability?) which are done by NIS (someone correct me if I am off here). How long does that *usually* take? I have no knowledge about how NIS is put together as a unit or how many positions they have dedicated to these clearances. I do know that a number of our training establishments are back logged, especially some of the tech schools that run lengthy courses. It takes time to finish a qualified soldier.

   I would question the AG on just what a "trained soldier" is. Are we talking QL5, your 4's, what is the line that they are using? 700 troops in 4 years, across the CF, seems ridiculously low. CFSEME in Borden could (when I was there) pump out 100+ QL3's on top of 70+ QL5's and specialty courses per year. That's just one school.


----------



## Enzo (16 May 2006)

No records? No paper? I love hearing things like that. I should try it.

_"Sir, do you have an accounting of your financial activities for March 3-11, 2006?"

"Nope. Never did."

"Oh... okay then. So... wanna job in upper management?"

"Sure, if you cover my golf fees."

"Course, not coming outta my pocket. Welcome to the CFC."_


----------



## Echo9 (16 May 2006)

The problem with recruiting is ultimately one about risk management.  Through the '80s and '90s (and probably longer than that), the tolerance for risk was reduced, which is one of the inevitable laws of bureaucracy.  The specific risk is to have an irregular enrollment- each one of these is costly, there's potential for legal entanglements - all in all, they're something that you want to avoid.

The problem is, once you're monitoring every application as if it has a potential to be irregular, you're making the enrollment process much more cumbersome than it needs to be.  When it takes a long, difficult effort to join, people naturally leave.

The other half of it is a training system that's so far backed up that there are people who do their entire initial engagement without getting trained (take a swing by Borden to see the result).

That said, I cannot believe that the ratio is 30:1 for applicants to trained soldiers... unless they're counting reserve applications and not counting trained reserve soldiers.  The only other explanation is that since there's almost a full year of initial training, that most of the applications came in the last year, and that bumper crop is only now coming off course.  Normally, I expect about a 9:1 ratio of applicant to trained soldiers- hardly good, but substantially better than is indicated in the report


----------



## Kirkhill (16 May 2006)

Here's a better break down.  From the Star no less. 



> A statistical sample of 13,500 applicants showed that 1,200 were found medically unfit, 1,600 were physically unfit, 950 failed because of drug use, 1,200 failed the aptitude and other screening tests and 3,800 others lost interest or backed out somewhere during the process. That left 4,750 actual recruits.
> 
> In the last four years, the military recruited 20,000 people, but was left with a net gain of only 700 trained, effective personnel. During those four years, 16,000 people left the military. Thousands of others are still in training, which can take from two to seven years.



13,500 Applicants
-1200 Medically Unfit
-1600 Physically Unfit
-1200 Failed Aptitude Tests
-950 Drug Use 

=8,550 Potential Recruits
-3800 That Gave Up (Too Long in the system or found a better offer?) There's the lost opportunity.

=4750 Actual Recruits

Another way to look at it:

20,000 Actual Recruits since 2002  
- 16,000 Leavers (More lost opportunity?)
= Net gain of 700 effectives over 2002 levels.  More are in the system but in training and unavailable for service.  (An opportunity here by revising career progression?  Cbt Arms before getting Trades Training?)


----------



## kincanucks (16 May 2006)

_It seems that a great number of questions fielded here are related to the time required for the security clearances required (enhanced reliability?) which are done by NIS (someone correct me if I am off here). How long does that usually take? I have no knowledge about how NIS is put together as a unit or how many positions they have dedicated to these clearances._

Okay you are off here and you don't know what you are talking about.  (snippy enough?)  The Criminal and Credit check portion of the Enhanced Reliability Check (ERC) is done through DPM Sec 2 in Ottawa and this can take approx three to four business days if there are no issues.  When there are issues then the time required to complete the ERC is significantly lengthened.  The remainder of the ERC is done by the CFRC/D and this includes reference checks, educational checks and address checks and this in itself does not take very long.  A simple search would have prevented you from posting erroneous information.  I guess that is considered 'snippy'.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (16 May 2006)

He did say correct me if I am wrong (which you have done).  No need to get snippy.


----------



## rick7475 (16 May 2006)

-1200 Medically Unfit
-1600 Physically Unfit

hmmm, are they saying that the 1200 that were 'medically unfit' were physically fit? 1600 physically unfit means what? Overweight? Underweight? Can't run 1.5 km? 

I wish I could compare this to a sampling of 13500 recruits for WW2 and see what the statistics are.


----------



## paracowboy (17 May 2006)

> Liberals lie


 Message Ends.


----------



## vangemeren (17 May 2006)

I think this is a candidate for two separate topics because they deal with two different topics: Liberal book cooking (what the reports says anyways) and  military recruitment.



> Liberals lie
> Message Ends.



All politicians lie, give the Conservatives more time and they'll be the same, just like the others.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (17 May 2006)

Medically Unfit- ie heart murmer
Physically Unfit - ie can't do the push ups


----------



## MdB (17 May 2006)

rick7475 said:
			
		

> 1600 physically unfit means what? Overweight? Underweight? Can't run 1.5 km?



Means can't meet the standards:
Physical Requirements

Here are medical standards:
Enrollment Medical Standards

Thx do DSs.


----------



## C/10 (17 May 2006)

Dont know if this rumor is true but I heard that the CF is fast tracking Infantry.... Anybody heard anything?


----------



## pronto (17 May 2006)

Typical Media hyperbole. The books weren't cooked! They reported costs on differing fiscal years with the advice and consent of the Comptroller General. Sheila didn't like that - too bad... No one cooked any books, and all the monies were accounted for (from 2003 on, anyways)


----------



## Bograt (17 May 2006)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> - 16,000 Leavers (More lost opportunity?)
> = Net gain of 700 effectives over 2002 levels.  More are in the system but in training and unavailable for service.  (An opportunity here by revising career progression?  Cbt Arms before getting Trades Training?)



Mods, you may want to consider spitting the thread into two: a gun Registry/corruption and a Recruiting bashing.

The challenge within the recruiting world is not how many people are recruited, but rather how many members retire/leave the forces. IIRC we loose 5-6000 people a year as a result of retirement and other reasons. In the coming years (next3-5) the demographics are such that many qualified senior nco and junior and senior officers will also be eligible for retirement. 

Also the recruiting process is different depending on trade. For some trades in high demand (ie infantry and combat engineer) the process is typically much faster than say MARS and PLT (who's boards meet periodically).

I don't know if Ottawa has outlined an acceptable period of time an application should progress through the recruiting process. Reference what I said earlier, I don't know if it would be possible. Based on what I know in a CFRC DET it can take about a month to three months to process an application. (We must fly in medical staff and PT staff), 6-8 weeks for the medical (for some trades), another period of time to wait for the boards and have an offer made. When an offer is made, a candidate may not start his course immediately. This is dependant on what is going on in St. Jean.

I can say that recruiting offices are working very hard to get people through. Last fiscal year, our small det exceeded our recruitment target by over 100. We are on track to exceed that  number this fiscal year. 

Keep in mind as well that this is a volunteer military. Also we must ensure that we meet a minimum standard of quality for applicants. 

As I said in another thread concerning the AG Report and recruiting, it appears we are now wrestling with the challenges created by the FRP and cuts of the past.


----------



## Redneck052 (17 May 2006)

The othe consideration of people leaving the CF are the other agencies in the government that are hiring.  And with better pay.
The CF is gettin a 2.3% pay increase in Oct.  RCMP got 9.7%.

CSIS, RCMP, and a handful of other agncies are hiring tech positions.  Making their offers attractive compared to our month-to-month pay for those who have applied.  In some cases with the Security Clearances, that is where these agencies scoop these people up too.

Want to retain people in the regular force and reserve forces, you have to begin with better pay, and more attractive packages.


----------



## GAP (17 May 2006)

I think the AG was pointing out the the NET increase was only 700. That was allowing for the loss of personnel getting out. She's probably right that a new focus is needed, maybe some of the recruiting ads I saw on this site could be adapted to the CF. 

As to the CF pay increase, I believe the RCMP was a 3 year contract, thus if the CF got 2.3% per year that's 6.9% over 3 years..not the same, but not that far out either. 

As for the pay for the forces, taken in context as to what civilian life offers for the same jobset skills, they are not that poorly paid. There is a huge investment in training a person that is generally not available outside, unless you pay and do it yourself. The CF benefits rock compared to Non-government jobs.  Is the pay and benefits what you would like? Probably not, but that's mostly human nature, no matter what job we are in.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (17 May 2006)

who did you hear that from Redneck?


----------



## GAP (17 May 2006)

huh?


----------



## The_Falcon (17 May 2006)

pronto said:
			
		

> Typical Media hyperbole. The books weren't cooked! They reported costs on differing fiscal years with the advice and consent of the Comptroller General. Sheila didn't like that - too bad... No one cooked any books, and all the monies were accounted for (from 2003 on, anyways)



Are you being sarcastic? Cause if you are not, were are you getting your info from?


----------



## Hebridean (17 May 2006)

Hey I was thinking that the CF does need to alter some of their policy with regard with medical requirements.  

13,500 Applicants
-1200 Medically Unfit
-1600 Physically Unfit
-1200 Failed Aptitude Tests
-950 Drug Use 


I was rejected because of flat feet which deemed my non-deployable even though the position I applied for was for the reserves.  Although, I and my Podiatrist (foot doctor) might despute this I am forced to respect this decision.  However, I was told by that the only time the medical conditions are altered or lessened would be in a time of war, which is coincidentally the only time the reserves can be used in large measure.  In a time of full mobilization my flat feet would be overlooked.  I was thinking,  that the CF could establish a force for those that just failed to meet the cut.  This may be achived with the establishment of a Tertiary  reserve that would encompass some of the medically and physical fit (within reason of course), that would be stationed exclusively in Canada and could respond to natural disasters and other events while freeing up troops that meet the medical standards to be deployed abroad.  Included could be soldiers that had been injured in combat and deemed not suitable for regular duty, but could serve as training instructors.  Of course since this unit is not deployable the pay should perhaps be less. I do think there are some Canadians who would be interested in this, especially if the had a faster enrollment regime.  I believe a test to determine suitability would be a modified basic training course.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (17 May 2006)

My feet were as flat as pancakes in 1987 when I was enlisted. 

Medical standards get higher in time of war, not lower, at least initially. In 1914 you couldn't get in if you wore glasses, for example. The reason? More guys try joining when there is a war, so you have better "stock" to choose from. Standards go down if the war lasts a long time and they get desperate to find reinforcements.

I'm not sure if they changed the standard on feet or not; mine have never given me trouble.

A two-tier Army would be a bad idea, though I personally feel there is some merit in differing standards dependent on employment. We had a crackerjack drummer in the cadet corps here who wanted to get in the Militia as a musician but couldn't because of diabetes.  The question of rejecting those outright that can't deploy has been done here; we don't seem to have a problem keeping on people on med categories who had previously been fit to serve, now serving only in reduced duty slots. The CDS we have is very keen on everyone being "fit to fight" which is certainly not a bad idea - when we have the luxury of the necessary manpower to do so.


----------



## Hebridean (17 May 2006)

Yes I agree intially it is harder-but later on as casualities mount they will not be so particular.  But do we have the manpower is the current situation suggestive that we don't? Would a secondary reserve help make the CF overall more deployable by freeing up jobs oversees.  After all the physical standards have been lowered  since the 1970s why have the medical ones not been?  So the CF has already compromised on one front allowing our soldiers to be less physically fit than they used to.  Would allowing minor medical conditions be any different? Why not let some of these people go through basic rather than precluded on them on a conceptual medical basis.  I am sure all of us have friends in the CF have now how have minor medical conditions that would prevent them from joining the CF today.  If these soldiers can ably do the job today why are current applicants being rejected for these same conditions in a time of shortages of personnel accross the board. (sorry for the rant)


----------



## 2 Cdo (17 May 2006)

pronto said:
			
		

> Typical Media hyperbole. The books weren't cooked! They reported costs on differing fiscal years with the advice and consent of the Comptroller General. Sheila didn't like that - too bad... No one cooked any books, and all the monies were accounted for (from 2003 on, anyways)



Yes the Liberal party was the best thing to ever happen to Canada! :


----------



## Hebridean (17 May 2006)

Those darn liberals unlike the glorious Conservatives who have never done anything I mean anthing wrong.  Especially to the military.  They never make huge promises to the military and break them, oh and  Kim Campbell was the best defence minister ever, ever. (period)


----------



## Michael Dorosh (17 May 2006)

Hebridean said:
			
		

> Those darn liberals unlike the glorious Conservatives who have never done anything I mean anthing wrong.  Especially to the military.  They never make huge promises to the military and break them, oh and  Kim Campbell was the best defence minister ever, ever. (period)



She did great things for gun owners as Justice Minister also IIRC.


----------



## pronto (17 May 2006)

2 Cdo said:
			
		

> Yes the Liberal party was the best thing to ever happen to Canada! :



never said that, just said the media were wrong comme d'habitude... They got it wrong. OAG was complaining about the charges being placed into the wrong years and off the wrong accounts... They weren't cooking books, they were reporting costs in an unexpected way. Salient fact - they were reporting costs... 

Liberals tick me off. So do Conservatives though... Must be getting cranky in my old age. ;D


----------



## paracowboy (17 May 2006)

Michael Dorosh said:
			
		

> She did great things for gun owners as Justice Minister also IIRC.


yeah, she was a real treat, that one. Someone shoulda slapped her upside head with a halibut! Whack! (Actually, I'd pay good money to see that. We should make that someone's permanent posting in Parliament. You say something really stupid and WHAP! Big ol' fish to the face.)


----------



## a_majoor (17 May 2006)

pronto said:
			
		

> OAG was complaining about the charges being placed into the wrong years and off the wrong accounts... They weren't cooking books, they were reporting costs in an unexpected way.



Doing a clean set of books means placing income and expenditures in the *expected* way. Anything else is fraud.


----------



## KevinB (18 May 2006)

geez Art, you make it seem like generally accepted accounting practices are law of something like that  ;D


----------



## Jason38 (18 May 2006)

In support of Michael's reply #23:--

While there had been no difficulty in raising the 1st Contingent, CEF,  senior officers in Ottawa had the first hint of recruiting problems for the 2nd Contingent in January 1915 and although there was an increase in the number of men enlisting after the Second Battle of Ypres in April, by early summer recruiting across the country was down. To increase enlistment, a number of changes were made in mid-June:

•	recruiting was to be centralized at new recruiting centres;
•	there was a slight lowering of medical standards;
•	medical conditions that could be rectified by treatment were no longer to be considered a reason for rejection;
•	the requirement for consent from wives or parents was dropped; and
•	the regulation that allowed a recruit to change his mind upon the payment of a $15 fee was cancelled. 

See:--  Barbara M. Wilson. Ontario and the First World War (Toronto, 1977).


----------



## pronto (18 May 2006)

a_majoor said:
			
		

> Doing a clean set of books means placing income and expenditures in the *expected* way. Anything else is fraud.



Not if Treasury Board and the Office of the Comptroller General agreed to them reporting in the way they did.


----------



## pronto (18 May 2006)

paracowboy said:
			
		

> yeah, she was a real treat, that one. Someone shoulda slapped her upside head with a halibut! Whack! (Actually, I'd pay good money to see that. We should make that someone's permanent posting in Parliament. You say something really stupid and WHAP! Big ol' fish to the face.)


 ;D HA! I love it! Gentleman Usher of the Stinky Fish... Jeez... He'd be busy. Easiest just to hold two fish at arm's length, and then just run rapidly down the centre of parliament delivering "whacks" to both sides at the same time... That oughta wipe the moustache off Jack Layton's face.


----------



## Edward Campbell (19 May 2006)

pronto said:
			
		

> never said that, just said the media were wrong comme d'habitude... They got it wrong. OAG was complaining about the charges being placed into the wrong years and off the wrong accounts... They weren't cooking books, they were reporting costs in an unexpected way. Salient fact - they were reporting costs...
> 
> Liberals tick me off. So do Conservatives though... Must be getting cranky in my old age. ;D



This editorial, from today’s _Globe and Mail_ explains why this is more than a _”disagreement between accountants”_ and why, irrespective of anything the government-of-the-day may have _approved_ it is an attack, a cynical, calculated attack on our very system of democracy.  The politicians (cheap, crooked, ward heeling hacks is a better description) who perpetrated this offence should be tried by parliament for contempt of parliament and when, not if, convicted punished as severely as the laws and rights of parliament allow.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20060519.EREGISTRY19/TPStory/Opinion/editorials


> How they concealed the gun-centre funds
> 
> Couched in the dry jargon of accountants, stuffed with endless acronyms, the Auditor-General's report this week on the gun registry threatens to slip off the nation's radar screens. That would be a shame.
> 
> ...



My emphasis added.

Reproduced under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act.


----------



## Hebridean (19 May 2006)

The violations of parliament are highly overstated.  We do not live in the United States were every expense has to be cleared through Congress.  Our system of government allows the executive to make financial decisions outside of Parliament that is why we have Governor General Warrants and Order in Council's where a cabinet minister can appropriate funds by getting the Governor General to sign off on it.  I am not sure what the big deal is the money was reported just in the wrong year. Don't politicians tinker with the numbers all the time (i.e. Alberta is debt free.  No actually it won't be debt free for a couple more years or so-but why let facts get in the way-let's report our financial situation of tommorrow today) 

As well, I particularly enjoy how our Auditor General is finding all these scandals years after they occurred, maybe if she was doing her job better she would have immediately stopped the sponsorship and all the other scandals she has "found" (most of the scandals she has reported on were not discovered by her-what does they say about her capabilities) as soon as they started rather than them being allowed to persist for years.   She is detailing how the barn door was left open after the horse was long gone- I would love for once to see her close the barn door before the horse leaves. ( I apologize for the farm metaphors).  Good luck Sheila and stop the leaks from your office  as some might accuse you of being partisian if this persists.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (19 May 2006)

Hebridean said:
			
		

> As well, I particularly enjoy how our Auditor General is finding all these scandals years after they occurred, maybe if she was doing her job better she would have immediately stopped the sponsorship and all the other scandals she has "found" (most of the scandals she has reported on were not discovered by her-what does they say about her capabilities) as soon as they started rather than them being allowed to persist for years.   She is detailing how the barn door was left open after the horse was long gone- I would love for once to see her close the barn door before the horse leaves. ( I apologize for the farm metaphors).



I thought the AG was there to audit completed projects - not ongoing ones? What are her precise terms of reference?

Given the thousands of government projects on the go, how would her office know which ones to watch on an ongoing basis? How else would her office operate if not on identified trouble spots - which would necessarily be on events happening in the past?


----------



## Edward Campbell (19 May 2006)

Hebridean said:
			
		

> *The violations of parliament are highly overstated.  We do not live in the United States were every expense has to be cleared through Congress.  Our system of government allows the executive to make financial decisions outside of Parliament that is why we have Governor General Warrants and Order in Council's where a cabinet minister can appropriate funds by getting the Governor General to sign off on it.  I am not sure what the big deal is the money was reported just in the wrong year.  * Don't politicians tinker with the numbers all the time (i.e. Alberta is debt free.  No actually it won't be debt free for a couple more years or so-but why let facts get in the way-let's report our financial situation of tommorrow today)
> 
> As well, I particularly enjoy how our Auditor General is finding all these scandals years after they occurred, maybe if she was doing her job better she would have immediately stopped the sponsorship and all the other scandals she has "found" (most of the scandals she has reported on were not discovered by her-what does they say about her capabilities) as soon as they started rather than them being allowed to persist for years.   She is detailing how the barn door was left open after the horse was long gone- I would love for once to see her close the barn door before the horse leaves. ( I apologize for the farm metaphors).  Good luck Sheila and stop the leaks from your office  as some might accuse you of being partisian if this persists.



Only someone who missed the last 350 years believes that.

The basic principle of our parliamentary system is that the Executive (HM the Queen and her Privy Council – effectively the cabinet of the day) is _checked_ by a sovereign parliament which has absolute, final and undisputed control of taxes and spending.

Every red cent must be spent exactly as directed by parliament.  That’s why we have budgets (to raise money) and estimates and supplementary estimates (to say what will be spent, when, how and why).  HM (and her Privy Council) propose but parliament, and only parliament decides.  Her Majesty may not put a public copper coin in the loo unless parliament approves, and the rubbish we elect (and who are then selected to serve in cabinet) have no right, none at all, under any circumstance to spend a penny of public money in any way not approved by parliament.  To do so is to breach the_ privileges_ of parliament which are at the heart of our democratic system – and the Johnny-come-lately American system, too, for that matter.

The fact is that Canadian cabinets, from Pearson on, have usurped parliament’s authority.  The fact that they have done this does not make it right.

Here is why we have an OAG: _“The Office of the Auditor General (OAG) audits federal government operations and provides Parliament with independent information, advice and assurance to help hold the government to account for its stewardship of public funds. We are responsible for performance audits and studies of federal departments and agencies. We conduct financial audits of the government's financial statements (public accounts) and perform special examinations and annual financial audits of Crown Corporations.”_ 
http://www.oag-bvg.gc.ca/domino/oag-bvg.nsf/html/menue.html

It is hard for auditors to prejudge facts; that’s the role of leadership and management: the people we elect and the senior people they hire.  Our so called leaders have failed us; worse, they have attacked the foundations of our democracy for their own partisan purposes.  Those who approved this fraud need to be tried and convicted as the criminals they are.  If there are other criminals in other Canadian legislatures then let's lock them away, too.


----------



## Hebridean (19 May 2006)

In response to last post.    I agree Parliament should aprove funds but that is not always the case.  You are exagerating a little bit though on the power of Parliament.  Here is why:

from the Financial Administration Act.   http://www.parl.gc.ca/MarleauMontpetit/DocumentViewer.aspx?
Sec=Ch18&Seq=4&Lang=E&Print=1

*18. Financial Procedures
Governor General’s Special Warrants
In a very special circumstance, the Financial Administration Act allows the Governor in Council to ask the Governor General to issue a Special Warrant [300]  permitting the government to make charges not otherwise authorized by Parliament on the Consolidated Revenue Fund, provided that the following conditions are met: [301]  

Parliament is dissolved; 
A Minister has reported that an expenditure is urgently required for the public good; and 
The President of the Treasury Board has reported that there is no appropriation for the payment. 
This provision of the Act makes it possible for the government to continue its work during a dissolution. Special Warrants may be used only from the date of dissolution until 60 days following the date fixed for the return of the writs after a general election. Furthermore, no Special Warrants may be issued during that period if Parliament stands prorogued. [302]  

The Financial Administration Act requires that every Special Warrant be published in the Canada Gazette within 30 days of its issue. Notification of the amount authorized under such a Warrant must also be tabled in the House within 15 days of the commencement of the next Session of Parliament [303]  and authorization must be included retroactively in the first Appropriation Act passed in that Session. 

as well

From http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/archives/003409.html


January 21, 2006
Billion Dollar Order In Council
$1.13 billion in secret pre-election spending?


Whereas the President of the Treasury Board reports that there is no appropriation for the payment of the sums mentioned in the annexed schedule, amounting in the aggregate to? $1,130,433,505, and the appropriate Ministers have reported that the payment of these sums is urgently required for the public good;
? 
And whereas Parliament is not in session and there is no other appropriation pursuant to which the payment of these sums may be made;
? 
Therefore, Her Excellency the Governor General in Council, on the recommendation of the President of the Treasury Board, pursuant to subsection?30(1) of the Financial Administration Act, hereby directs the preparation of a special warrant to be signed by the Governor General authorizing the payment, effective December?22,?2005, of the sums mentioned in the annexed schedule, amounting in the aggregate to $1,130,433,505, to be made out of the 
Consolidated Revenue Fund.

SPECIAL WARRANT
?
Pursuant to Order in Council P.C. 2005?2337?of December?20,?2005, the President of the Treasury Board is hereby authorized to pay out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund, effective December?22,?2005, the amount of $1,130,433,505 for the purposes set out in the annexed schedule.


*


----------



## Brad Sallows (19 May 2006)

>As well, I particularly enjoy how our Auditor General is finding all these scandals years after they occurred, maybe if she was doing her job better she would have immediately stopped the sponsorship and all the other scandals she has "found" (most of the scandals she has reported on were not discovered by her-what does they say about her capabilities) as soon as they started rather than them being allowed to persist for years.

I particularly enjoy your efforts to deflect the blame onto the OAG.  I'd like the police to prevent more crimes too, but, failing that, I still expect criminals to receive every inch of the consequences they deserve.  Let's not lose sight of who did wrong here, shall we, and at least separate malfeasance from mere lack of competence.

Notwithstanding your debate with Edward over exactly how the monies could or should have been approved, there is still one huge stinking turd in the punch bowl mentioned in the article cited by Edward: the apparent lack of documentation regarding the accounting decision and who made it, and the apparent unwillingness or inability of anyone involved to locate such documentation if it exists and is merely difficult to find.   Maybe we should have a national "Find the File" day during which all federal government offices come to a screeching halt so that every office, no matter how small or inconsequential, exhaustively combs every cabinet, desk, binder, etc in an effort to find the information.  (Sound familiar?)


----------



## munky99999 (19 May 2006)

> 13,500 Applicants
> -1200 Medically Unfit
> -1600 Physically Unfit
> -1200 Failed Aptitude Tests
> -950 Drug Use


medically unfit?
These usually are pretty good reasons why not to accept people. Flat feet for example can develop into a pretty bad condition.
Physically unfit?
as I've explained elsewhere. perhaps a possible training camp to get you into shape. Hypothetically, you could gain a good amount of good people by doing this.
Failed Aptitude Tests?
Nothing can be done except guiding them to a GED course or something similar.
Drug Use?
Definitely not people you want to be shooting guns and/or worse. Guide them to a detox centre.

But as explain by another person in this thread. A lot of people are lost because of how long it takes before training starts. Usually people apply for a job because they need a job. Not to wait awhile.


----------



## Kirkhill (19 May 2006)

Hebridean (I'm from Kyle myself - no accounting for tastes I guess)

Your Special Warrant example goes to prove Edward's point.  A Special Warrant is Special because it is not Usual.  It assumes that the Usual situation of Parliament not being dissolved is not in effect.  Usually, if Parliament is in session then Parliament will scrutinize dollars spent.  If dollars are to be spent when Parliament is not in session then you need a very good reason (Such as a SARS outbreak) to justify circumventing the Usual procedure.  Once Parliament sits your decision will be held up to scrutiny, a non-confidence motion on a money bill called by the opposition and the government defeated (if the circumstances warrant -edit).


As to the 1.3 BCAD in Urgent spending for the public good just after the election was called......funny they couldn't have voted the funds before the election.  Emergencies are what you make them I guess.

Cheers.


----------



## George Wallace (19 May 2006)

munky99999 said:
			
		

> medically unfit?
> These usually are pretty good reasons why not to accept people. Flat feet for example can develop into a pretty bad condition.
> Physically unfit?
> as I've explained elsewhere. perhaps a possible training camp to get you into shape. Hypothetically, you could gain a good amount of good people by doing this.
> ...



And as explained to you in another Topic (also), it is not the Government's job to teach these people to pass a GED Crse, or to train them to become physically fit, in order for them to qualify to join the Canadian Forces.  It is the individuals own initiative to prep themselves for any job that they may apply for; not the Employer.  We do not live in that kind of a Welfare State.  

It appears that you are showing some attributes that may get you into trouble on this site, so please clean up your act, and stop posting the same stuff in numerous threads.  As a matter of fact, on reviewing your responses there, You are being introduced to the Warning System, as per the PM coming your way about Trolling and not obeying the Rules of Conduct for this site.


----------



## Hebridean (19 May 2006)

All good points.  I will have to yield to many   Not wanting to get in an accounting brouhaha.  I just wanted to say that Order-in-Councils and Special Warrants are more common than we think.  By no means was I attempting to deflect all the blame on the Auditor General, sorry if this was how my position was perceived. 
Go Sheila. Go Sheila.

 I believe Mr. Swallows was refering to the quest for the Somalia documents in his mention of file day in which thousands of CF members were assigned for a day to go through file cabinets in search of a document????  While I do share his concerns of lack of documentation I do know that there can be too much documentation and too much bureaucracy as well.  I am sure there is a happy medium though.  

Cheers


----------



## GAP (19 May 2006)

Actually, it was Paul Martin, after Adscam broke, that reworked the AG coverage to have the "equivalent" to a CFO for each department. Don't quite know how far that got implemented, but all finances had to go through them prior to being spent.


----------

