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

[GAP]

huh?

 

[The_Falcon]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[Jason38]

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]

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]

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]

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.

In two separate chapters, with meticulous detective work, Sheila Fraser has chronicled a tale of bureaucrats, and perhaps their political masters, conspiring to conceal the fact that gun-centre spending had exceeded its authorized annual limits. Such unusual abuse may affect the ancient privileges of Parliament itself. As Ms. Fraser grimly noted, this misdeed "is a very serious and a very, very rare occurrence in government. It is more than simply a disagreement between accountants." In fact, it is the complex saga of desperate bureaucratic schemes to shuffle cost overruns from one fiscal year to another.

The Auditor-General's troops got their first hint that something was amiss when they settled down to audit the Canadian Firearms Centre's 2004-05 expenditures. Bingo: There was an error. The centre had mistakenly recorded $21.8-million for its new super-duper information system -- which is not yet in use -- on the 2004-05 books when that amount should have been included in the previous year.

So the auditors went back in time, peering through the books of previous years. They concluded that the centre did not count the money in 2003-04 because that would have meant another visit to the House of Commons to ask for more money in the supplementary estimates. (The Auditor-General delicately did not mention that this would have meant bad publicity on the brink of the 2004 election.)

But why were the 2003-04 allocations inadequate? It turns out that in 2002-03, when the firearms centre was still under the control of the Justice Department, the then-Liberal government had pledged that spending that year would not exceed $100.2-million. So when spending on that super-duper system went over the limit, the bureaucrats shuffled $39-million forward from 2002-03 into 2003-04. Conveniently for them, there is somehow no written record of how or why this decision was taken. "In our opinion," Ms. Fraser's report notes, "it would likely have been of significant interest to Parliament that a major expenditure was not recorded in the correct fiscal year."

Meanwhile, with $39-million on its books at the start of a new year, the centre was barely treading water as it rolled into 2003-04. Its new system ran up even more bills. More money was required. By February of 2004, as the end of that fiscal year loomed, it became clear that more funds from the supplementary estimates were required. The report notes that "senior officials briefed ministers. It was decided that supplementary estimates were not desirable." In other words, no bad publicity. Something had to be done.

The solution should make every taxpayer's blood congeal. After much scrutiny of different accounting techniques and legalities, and after a key interdepartmental meeting at which no notes were taken -- and about which everyone's recollection differs -- the centre duly noted the $21.8-million as an "unrecorded liability" in its departmental performance reports and in the annual letter of assets and liabilities that it sends to the Treasury Board. Then it happily chronicled the amount under its 2004-05 expenses. Deed done. Then along came Ms. Fraser.

This is no mere case of cheque kiting. The House of Commons cannot control the public purse if it does not receive accurate spending records. Such spending oversight has been a venerable prerogative from Confederation. In fact, the 1867 order that conferred that power copied a resolution adopted in Britain in 1678. So the failure to produce accurate accounts "could be viewed as limiting Parliament's control of public spending." That, in turn, could be viewed as an infringement of the privileges of the House. (The House of Commons itself must decide that.) And that means that such bureaucratic conniving is more than an accounting fiddle.

In the wake of Ms. Fraser's report, Public Safety Minister Stockwell Day suspended the requirement to register non-restricted weapons, and he put the RCMP in charge of the centre. That scored political points with a portion of his Conservative constituency. But the lessons of the gun registry should be required reading for every Ottawa denizen. It turns out that no matter how many rules there are, the rules do little good when bureaucrats across departments connive, and don't keep records of that connivance. That is a bitter lesson. The Auditor-General deserves our thanks.

My emphasis added.

Reproduced under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act.

 

[Hebridean]

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]

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]

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]

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.