• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

"Secret RCMP report warns Canadians may revolt once they realize how broke they are" (NatPost/Postmedia)

The Bread Guy

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
2,923
Points
1,260
Via the National Post (archived link also here) ....
One take from the editors of The Line podcast (archived link to newsletter also here)
From The Line newsletter:
1711548191850.png
Dare we add those who also say that if all those young 'uns stopped buying Starbucks, they could afford a house?

Lots to digest in these two pieces - full (redacted) report also attached.
 

Attachments

  • Rcmp_Document_March_2024-1.pdf
    1.3 MB · Views: 7
Nothing says “public trust is an issue” quite like the huge expanse of white on p.7/9 redacting the “Erosion of Trust:” paragraph… 😉
To be fair to the Folks in Red Serge, we'll see what a future Team Blue government does to open up the ATIP gates even a bit more than previous governments of both colour jerseys have allowed 🤞
 
With some the dumb notions within, this report just erodes trust more.
 
To be fair to the Folks in Red Serge, we'll see what a future Team Blue government does to open up the ATIP gates even a bit more than previous governments of both colour jerseys have allowed 🤞
My comment should have been more specific, TBG. I think the flavor of the application of exemptions to ATIA-related information releases was less from an RCMP-internal driven use of Section 16, and more a PMO/PCO-driven Section 21 and 69 (and possibly 14) application to keep the awareness of just how bad things potentially are in Canada, from public visibility. I give the rank and file of the RCMP/GRC significant latitude before lambasting them, as I think the heart of the issue of disfunction in the Force is rooted firmly in political/leadership failures…ex- Cmsre Lucki being but one example of the malaise.

 
Via the National Post (archived link also here) ....
One take from the editors of The Line podcast (archived link to newsletter also here)
From The Line newsletter:
View attachment 84067
Dare we add those who also say that if all those young 'uns stopped buying Starbucks, they could afford a house?

Lots to digest in these two pieces - full (redacted) report also attached.

Amaaazing! o_O

As everybody knew the only really important thing is "The Environment" TM. Nothing else matters. /sarcasm - FMG.
 
... I think the flavor of the application of exemptions to ATIA-related information releases was less from an RCMP-internal driven use of Section 16, and more a PMO/PCO-driven Section 21 and 69 (and possibly 14) application to keep the awareness of just how bad things potentially are in Canada, from public visibility ...
Seen, and far from impossible these days. That said, other governments have had the chance to open the doors more, and they haven't. We'll see what happens down the road.
 
What, trust is important? We can't misuse the powers of our institutions and stretch them beyond recognition without adverse effects? There are consequences of repeated misstatement, understatement, overstatement, and obfuscation of important facts and context?
 
As I am retired, I can watch these Committee Meetings. As stated, prior, The Liberal members continually try to shut down the meetings, with Points of Order, run out the clock, etc.

It will be VERY interesting when the Premiers of New Brunswick and Alberta tomorrow attend the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates via video to speak about the carbon tax.

Why Cdns are unsettled:

Dan Knight on X

Good morning my fellow Canadians let's set the stage: Meeting No. 112 OGGO - Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates and we have Mr. Brock, representing the good people of Brantford—Brant, Ontario, stepping into the ring. His opponent? The elusive truths and half-truths swirling around the disastrous implementation of the ArriveCAN app. And who's in the hot seat? None other than Mr. Jonathan Moore, backed into a corner by the mounting evidence and the penetrating gaze of accountability.

Now, let's not mince words here. What we witnessed was a masterclass in political theater, but with stakes that are all too real. Brock, undeterred by bureaucratic niceties or the obfuscating language of politics, cuts to the chase: Who's responsible? Who hired GC Strategies, a company that, let's not forget, was paid an astonishing $20 million for what appears to be an elaborate game of "LinkedIn recruiter"?

And there, in the unforgiving light of parliamentary scrutiny, we saw it—a moment of truth, as rare as it is revealing. Despite the dance of avoidance and deflection, despite the layers of bureaucracy designed to muddle and confuse, Brock's relentless questioning bore fruit. Minh Doan's name, previously shrouded in a mist of denials and half-truths, emerged from the shadows, a name now synonymous with the mismanagement and misdirection that seems to be the hallmark of this entire affair.

[Larry Brock] Will you confirm with me right now at this point in time that Min Doan was charged with the responsibility of choosing [GCstratagies] Government of Canada strategies?

[Jonathan Moor] I can confirm once the staff augmentation model was agreed, the ISTB was responsible, the branch was responsible for putting in place the resources required…

[Larry Brock] And was that Min Doan, sir? Yes or no?

[Jonathan Moor] It would have been the Vice president of Information Science and technology

[Larry Brock] And the vice president at that time was Min Doan, correct?

[Jonathan Moor] That’s correct

[Larry Brock] Why did you have a difficult time saying that? Because he is the vice president. Right. End of discussion. You've now confirmed, as many people have confirmed, that it was Minh Doan. Minh Doan repeatedly lied to this committee saying he didn't personally make that decision, his team did. So I'm very glad for your honesty and we can clarify that and move on.

We turn our focus to Luc Berthold, who zeroes in on an intriguing piece of correspondence: a letter tied to a national security exemption and a certain supplier, the details of which seem as elusive as a shadow at dusk. Jonathan Moore, facing the heat, denies ever laying pen to paper on this controversial document. But Berthold, undeterred and armed with evidence, challenges Moore, claiming the signature on the document is indeed his. Moore, caught in the headlights of scrutiny, fumbles over details regarding the supplier in question, his memory as cloudy as a foggy morning in Halifax.

But Berthold is not one to back down. He presses on, demanding accountability, not just answers, for the murky waters surrounding the GC Strategy process and the troubled seas of the ArriveCAN project. It's a showdown of facts versus amnesia, of pointed questions against vague recollections. In a moment of clarity amidst the chaos, Moore, perhaps sensing the gravity of the situation, Moore acknowledges his responsibility as CFO and an executive of the CBSA and expresses commitment to addressing the identified failures and implementing improvement plans.

And the saga continues, ladies and gentlemen, as we delve deeper into the bureaucratic abyss with Taylor Bachrach, whose probing questions peel back layer upon layer of the ArriveCAN onion, revealing a core that might just bring tears to the eyes of any taxpayer.

As the narrative unfolds, we pivot to MP Taylor Bachrach whos slowly becoming one of my favorite NDP MP’s. Bachrach's line of questioning is simple, straightforward, yet loaded with the weight of accountability: Is it fraudulent for a contractor to claim for resources that were as absent as common sense in this entire debacle? Moore's response? A veritable dance around the facts, a masterclass in the art of deflection. According to him, if it's a staff augmentation contract, then yes, swapping out a Level 3 tech architect for a Level 2 would be considered fraudulent. But hold your horses, because when it comes to the grand scheme of things, the names on the invoice, the actual human beings contributing to the project, suddenly seem as relevant as last year's snow.

This, folks, is where the plot thickens into an impenetrable bureaucratic stew. According to Moore, the contract with the enigmatic Dalian, Corodex absolves the CBSA of any concern over who actually does the work. So, what are we left with? A system so loose, so devoid of accountability, that you could slap any name on the work—be it Justin Trudeau, Gerald Butts, or Santa Claus himself—and no one would bat an eyelid until, that is, the committee's spotlight turns their way. But here's the kicker, the moment that turns this bureaucratic ballet into a full-blown circus: despite an unfolding scandal, despite the alarming findings of the Auditor General that contractors involved in ArriveCAN were as active as a sloth on a lazy Sunday, no red flags were raised until the committee began its probe.

Moore's admission that greater oversight is needed is akin to saying the Titanic needed a better lookout. But the true iceberg here is the Botler report, a document so laden with red flags it could be mistaken for a Soviet parade. Yet, in a twist that leaves one's head spinning, Moore confesses to not having read the whistleblower report that screams of misconduct louder than a foghorn in a library. Ladies and gentlemen, if this doesn't highlight the dire need for a seismic shift in how governmental contracts are managed and scrutinized, I don't know what does.

Final Thoughts - My fellow Canadians, as we draw the curtains on this Kafkaesque theater of the absurd, where the ArriveCAN app seemingly turns a three-dollar piece of paper into a single dollar—while contractors laugh all the way to the bank—it's clear that we're not just witnessing inefficiency on a grand scale. No, this is a masterclass in how to squander taxpayer dollars with an audacity so breathtaking, it would leave even the most jaded cynic aghast.

And just when you thought this saga couldn't spiral further into the realms of the absurd, enter Air Canada, our national carrier, now seemingly in cahoots with the CBSA to peddle this app to unsuspecting travelers. Yes, you heard that right. My own experience just last Sunday was a testament to this farce. There we were, a plane full of passengers scratching their heads, wondering why on Earth we needed this app post-pandemic. It's a question no one could answer, but hey, why let a little thing like common sense get in the way of a good bureaucratic fumble?

But wait, there's more. Just when you think every possible twist has been played out, in walks Jenica Atwin Liberal MP, fashionably late and apologizing for potentially asking the same questions as her predecessors. "Sorry for potentially wasting everyone's time," she might as well have said. And it's hard not to chuckle at the irony—this coming from the very party that, not two weeks prior, was decrying the exorbitant costs of these investigations and committees. Oh, the irony! It would be laughable if it weren't so tragically absurd.

So here we are, folks, at the end of this dizzying merry-go-round of waste, inefficiency, and bureaucratic bumbling. And what do we have to show for it? Millions spent, zero accountability, and a public left holding the bag. My parting words? Perhaps it's time to vote with our wallets. Boycott Air Canada. Send a message that we're tired of being the collateral damage in their ill-conceived partnership schemes.As we sit here, watching our hard-earned tax dollars vanish into the bureaucratic abyss, it's clear that something needs to change. These MPs, these so-called representatives of the people, can't even be bothered to show up for a committee tasked with investigating where our money is going. Talk about entitlement!

Well, let me tell you something, Canada. Come 2025, I'll remember, and I hope you do too. Because when it comes time to cast our votes, there will be a reckoning. There will be a red wedding. It's time to clean house, to sweep out the cobwebs of corruption and incompetence, and to usher in a new era of accountability and transparency. It's time for change, it's time to take back our country, and it starts with each and every one of us come next election.

 
Well, let me tell you something, Canada. Come 2025, I'll remember, and I hope you do too. Because when it comes time to cast our votes, there will be a reckoning. There will be a red wedding. It's time to clean house, to sweep out the cobwebs of corruption and incompetence, and to usher in a new era of accountability and transparency. It's time for change, it's time to take back our country, and it starts with each and every one of us come next election.

It's almost like we need to.....drain the swamp.
 
Up to the politicians to at least start by changing the rules.

Fair. But observation of various countries around the globe suggests that the bureaucracy can outlast the politicians.

My personal favourites in this category are the Belgians

How did Belgium Manage to Survive without having a Government for 652 days? A case study of the Complexities and Challenges of the Federal State of Belgium ​

February 20, 2023

Did you know that Belgium had no government for 652 days? Hard to believe but true. This was the case from December 2018 to October 2020, where Belgium had no federal government and was governed by an interim government. This is nothing new to Belgium. It broke its own record from 2014 of not having a government for the longest time in the world [1]. Now you may think, ‘How was this possible?”. It was possible because of how Belgium is structured with its 6 governments and overall, a strongly federalized state. The historic background is the sharp regional divide between the Flemish-speaking North and the French-speaking South. Therefore, in the case of Belgium, it proved that a federalized state with extensive regionalized competence is on its own stable enough to function well with all its capacities without a federal government for an interim period. 

Somewhere between "Too many governments" and "No elected government" is the exploitable no-man's land of the bureaucracy.

...

I could also include Europe's tendency to punt elected politicians they don't like (Italy and Greece come to mind) and install technocrats they do like.
 
Even when politicians have promoted openness, has the civil service been open to openness?
I have personally seen PS fight to release documents for a ATIP that management does not want to release. There are a lot of PS staff up to program manager level that take pride in running a honest, fiscally responsible and open program. I have only seen that level of commitment at the EX level in a few individuals. I blame the concept that "Any EX can manage any department" and that their loyalty then becomes to the people who control the promotions, rather than to the Departments and Canada. That shift really started under Chreatin and seems to have continued to increase. I have always argued that 70% of the management should come from within the Department, who provide indepth knowledge of the Department role and history to the Ministers. With 30% new blood either from outside the PS or from other Departments to ensure there are fresh perspectives and ideas.
 
I have personally seen PS fight to release documents for a ATIP that management does not want to release. There are a lot of PS staff up to program manager level that take pride in running a honest, fiscally responsible and open program. I have only seen that level of commitment at the EX level in a few individuals. I blame the concept that "Any EX can manage any department" and that their loyalty then becomes to the people who control the promotions, rather than to the Departments and Canada. That shift really started under Chreatin and seems to have continued to increase. I have always argued that 70% of the management should come from within the Department, who provide indepth knowledge of the Department role and history to the Ministers. With 30% new blood either from outside the PS or from other Departments to ensure there are fresh perspectives and ideas.

So, your observation, the problem sits not with the field workers but with the DM/ADM level? How about the difference between the parliamentarians on the benches and the officers of the Parties?
 
So, your observation, the problem sits not with the field workers but with the DM/ADM level? How about the difference between the parliamentarians on the benches and the officers of the Parties?
I think a lot of the newer MP's go to Ottawa with a belief to make the system better, but are quickly demoralized and kept in their place by both the Party and by the bureaucracy. If you want to get a seat on a committee that counts, you must show the party that your loyalty is to them first. I recently had that discussion with the two candidates running for the CPC here in my riding. "It's not the party that elects you, but your voters here. Will you stand up to the party when you know what they proposes is very bad for your riding?" They look very uncomfortable when asked that.
 
They look very uncomfortable when asked that.
Well, that's honesty. They could have explicitly stated, Yes I will stand up to the Party. A Liberal/NDP would say that for sure.
 
As the Stomach Churns.

An example of the Liberals attempting to stop the Premier of Saskatchewan, who represents 1.2 million, from testifying at today's OGGO - Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates.

Liberals' frantic points of order FAIL to stop Saskatchewan Premier Scott Moe's testimony at OGGO

 
Back
Top