Liberal-New Democrat Alliance to Topple Harper

[TimG]

You don't care where $3.1b tax dollars disappeared to.

There is a huge difference between Chretien's golf balls and this money because this money may not have been spent at all and the portion that was spent was spent on legitimate department activities since all spending by departments is accounted for.

This is not a corruption scandal - it not a government waste scandal - it is book keeping problem.

I am much more upset over Clement's Gazebos than this phony scandal.

Unfortunately, the federal government is already a nightmare to work at because of all of documentation that is required to track spending. This problem is going to get worse because of people like you that want to blow the issue out of proportion.

Edited May 14, 2013 by TimG

[jacee]

There is a huge difference between Chretien's golf balls and this money because this money may not have been spent at all and the portion that was spent was spent on legitimate department activities since all spending by departments is accounted for.

This is not a corruption scandal - it not a government waste scandal - it is book keeping problem.

Unfortunately, the federal government is already a nightmare to work at because of all of documentation that is required to track spending. This problem is going to get worse because of people like you that want to blow the issue out of proportion.

At least Chretien knew what he spent it on.

Admit it TimG: It's a slush fund.

Sephen Harper budgeted

A bunch of billion dollars.

A bunch of billion dollars

Stephen Harper budgeted.

If Stephen Harper budgeted

a bunch of billion dollars,

WHERE THE FUCK'S OUR GODDAMNED MONEY???!!!

Edited May 14, 2013 by jacee

[TimG]

It's a slush fund

There is absolutely no evidence of that. In fact the evidence available says that it was not because the money could not have been spent without being allocated to a department and all off the funds spent by the departments are accounted for. If it was spent on dodgy items then those expenditures would have been flagged in the audits of individual departments.

Like I said: Clement's Gazebos are a bigger issue than this.

Edited May 14, 2013 by TimG

[ReeferMadness]

There is absolutely no evidence of that. In fact the evidence available says that it was not because the money could not have been spent without being allocated to a department and all off the funds spent by the departments are accounted for. If it was spent on dodgy items then those expenditures would have been flagged in the audits of individual departments.

Like I said: Clement's Gazebos are a bigger issue than this.

Yeah, I'm sure if the Liberals or NDP lost $3 billion, you'd be still be tripping all over yourself to excuse them, right? This isn't hypocrisy, right??

[ReeferMadness]

In answer to the OP, I don't think there will need to be an alliance. Chairman Harper and the knuckle-draggers (that would make a good name for a band!) are alienating Canadians and will be unelectable by 2015.

[TimG]

Yeah, I'm sure if the Liberals or NDP lost $3 billion, you'd be still be tripping all over yourself to excuse them, right?

Likely not. I dislike phony scandals more than I disagree with the NDP.

I defended Paul Martin back in 2005.

Edited May 14, 2013 by TimG

[jacee]

There is absolutely no evidence of that. In fact the evidence available says that it was not because the money could not have been spent without being allocated to a department and all off the funds spent by the departments are accounted for. If it was spent on dodgy items then those expenditures would have been flagged in the audits of individual departments.

I dunno ... "Border Security" is a pretty good catchall ... Sounds pretty legitimate, probably wouldn't raise any red flags ...

Like I said: Clement's Gazebos are a bigger issue than this.

Ahhhh yes! The "Border Security" Gazebos!

They've had practice at making things sound legitimate when they are just a political slush fund.

We wouldn't have known the truth about that unless somebody actually tracked and exposed where the money actually went, would we?

And the thing is ... this $3.1b was also spent entirely at the discretion of the Ministers ... just like Tony Clement's gazebos.

How can we possibly know whether the $3.1b was similarly spent by the Ministers as political payoffs if we have no idea how it was spent by the Ministers?

I appreciate that you trust senior bureaucrats to spend their allocations wisely. I do too.

But the money was allocated to the Ministries to be further allocated/spent at the discretion of the Ministers.

And we seriously need to know what they did with it.

I can imagine many justifications for use of an 'anti-terror' slush fund ...

"We were being terrorized by black flies and spent it covering the gazebos with netting!" (Tony Clement)

The fish weren't biting because they were terrorized by Peter Mackay's helicopter, so we had to buy him a stealth-copter.

John Baird is terrified by all those foreigners he has to deal with - that's terror, right? - so he bought a whole lot of anti-terror mace and tasers ... and valium.

Jason Kenney is terrified by sick immigrants who have no health care, so he bought an island retreat and a boatload of hand sanitizer and lysol spray ... and built a moat around his office.

Alberta wants in! So Harper bought the oil lobbyists a bunch of commuter jets so they can commute every day because they're terrified of 'freezing in the dark' in Ottawa.

And Vic Toews ... where to start!

I'll let someone else ...

We need to know.

[Accountability Now]

Jacee....you seem to be quite the freedom fighter for governments having unaccountable money losses. How about Teresa Spense in Attawapiskat? Are you just as outraged with that government as you are with Harper? Or is this where we see the hypocracy start?

[guyser]

Jacee....you seem to be quite the freedom fighter for governments having unaccountable money losses. How about Teresa Spense in Attawapiskat? Are you just as outraged with that government as you are with Harper? Or is this where we see the hypocracy start?

No comparison .

[TimG]

No comparison.

Yes, there is no comparison. In Attawapiskat there was no record of what money was spent on and some of it was likely spent on dubious and/or corrupt purposes. With the federal government we know exactly what the money was spent on and that the expenditures are legitimate given the mandate of the department. What we don't know is what the portion of the budget allocated for 'terrorism' was spent on because no one provided the necessary cross references. if the money was spent at all the worst case scenario is it was spent on legitimate activities that were not related to 'terrorism'. Edited May 14, 2013 by TimG

[guyser]

Yes, there is no comparison.

Should have quit there.

The rest is merely hyperbole.

Like this..

In Attawapiskat there was no record ...snip...of the department. What we don't know is what the portion of the budget allocated for 'terrorism' was ..lalala it was spent on legitimate activities that were not related to 'terrorism'.

Who did you vote for in the Attawapiskat elections?

[TimG]

Like this..Who did you vote for in the Attawapiskat elections?

Since the money is funding provided by the federal government all people who pay taxes to the federal government have a interest in how it is spent in Attawapiskat.

In the federal government there are records for all money that was paid out - if money was used to buy a computer or pay a staffer we have a record - there is no record in Attawapiskat. If a government computer was bought with funds allocated for terrorism then we have a problem but it is nothing close to the problem in Attawapiskat where we have no idea where the money went.

Edited May 14, 2013 by TimG

[guyser]

Since the money is funding provided by the ...snip...money that was paid out - if money was used to buy a computer or pay a staffer we have a record - there is no record ...snip Attawapiskat where we have no idea where the money went.

I looked in all those words, couldnt find who you voted for.

Saw a lot of hyperbole, but no answer. Figured it would go this way.

[Accountability Now]

I looked in all those words, couldnt find who you voted for.

Saw a lot of hyperbole, but no answer. Figured it would go this way.

So what you're saying is that since we didn't vote for Spense that we shouldn't care what happens to government money?

[guyser]

So what you're saying is that since we didn't vote for Spense that we shouldn't care what happens to government money?

Dont know who Spence is . Otherwise you can think what you want , but a comparison is not only stupid but silly beyond belief.

They are separate entities with many a contributing factor. Both should be investigated (contrary to your attempt to put words in my mouth) but the residents of Canada only voted for one of them,......unless you want to tell us who you voted for in Attawapiskat

Edited May 14, 2013 by guyser

[Accountability Now]

Dont know who Spence is . Otherwise you can think what you want , but a comparison is not only stupid but silly beyond belief.

They are separate entities with many a contributing factor. Both should be investigated (contrary to your attempt to put words in my mouth) but the residents of Canada only voted for one of them,......unless you want to tell us who you voted for in Attawapiskat

So you don't even know who Spense or Attawipiskat is and you are calling my comparison silly?

[TimG]

So you don't even know who Spense or Attawipiskat is and you are calling my comparison silly?

He is whining about your incorrect spelling.

[Accountability Now]

He is whining about your incorrect spelling.

Seriously? Now that is lame.

I didn't vote for anyone in Attawapiskat nor did I vote for Harper. Both have unaccounted government money. What's not comparable?

[MadX]

In answer to the OP, I don't think there will need to be an alliance. Chairman Harper and the knuckle-draggers (that would make a good name for a band!) are alienating Canadians and will be unelectable by 2015.

I hope you're right but what if his party suppresses the opposition vote with more robo-calls.

[MadX]

There's "a lack of clarity" ...

Ahhh ... so the "anti-terrorism" money is a slush fund to be spent any way a dept chooses with no accountability that it's actually spent on anti-terrorism.

I see.

I'll assume Harper spent it on golfballs.

He's always tried to outdo Chretien.

I see.

You don't care where $3.1b tax dollars disappeared to.

You didn't care about Chretien misspending either?

You seem to think it's important enough to try to hang a "large chunk" of the blame on the Liberals though.

I guess in your Math, less than 2% is a "large chunk"?

So what do you call the other 98%?

Golf ball fund?

Thanks for clarifying.

That picture is awesome, I should use it on my anti-harper facebook page. I'd love to hang those signs on telephone poles during the next election haha.

[TimG]

I hope you're right but what if his party suppresses the opposition vote with more robo-calls.

More hate and vilification from you. In this case there is absolutely no evidence that the robo-calls had any impact on the final outcome nor that they were anything other than a few over zealous campaign workers. Your suggestion that the results of the next election might be 'stolen' because of these robocalls is simply another attempt to dehumanize people you don't like. Edited May 15, 2013 by TimG

[jacee]

Yes, there is no comparison. In Attawapiskat there was no record of what money was spent on and some of it was likely spent on dubious and/or corrupt purposes.

That's a false allegation, same one Harper made, but the court ruled that he was wrong:

http://www.ctvnews.ca/mobile/canada/federal-court-unreasonable-to-send-manager-to-attawapiskat-1.900225

Aboriginal Affairs Minister John Duncan appointed outside manager Jacques Marion following suggestions from Prime Minister Stephen Harper that the local band was mishandling its finances. Marions arrival came at a price for Attawapiskat, with his $1,300-a-day fee coming out of the bands budget.

However, Federal Court ruled Wednesday that it has found no evidence Attawapiskat spent its money incorrectly.

What they lacked was not the ability to manage their finances, in which case a (third-party manager) may have been an appropriate and reasonable remedy, but the material means to do so, the court found.

With the federal government we know exactly what the money was spent on and that the expenditures are legitimate given the mandate of the department. What we don't know is what the portion of the budget allocated for 'terrorism' was spent on because no one provided the necessary cross references. if the money was spent at all the worst case scenario is it was spent on legitimate activities that were not related to 'terrorism'.

Now let me get this straight ...

You're saying that all of the items in the Ministers' spending of anti-terror funds are legitimate because they are identified as expenditures that 'sound reasonable'?

It isn't clear to me that you've actually inspected the Ministers'financial statements, but if you did and you saw an entry that said "Border security", you would think that sounded reasonable, right?

And when you later found out that $50m of "Border Security" funds were spent on gazebos in Muskoka, would you still find it acceptable?

Because that's what we have here ... some entries in the Ministers' statements that probably 'sound reasonable' ... but we have absolutely no idea what the money actually bought.

The anti-terror money was totally under political control by the Ministers.

And when we do start getting information about where the missing $3.1b actually went, I'm betting that will be political patronage too ... not pretty, and on a scale 30 times bigger than Chretien.

[TimG]

However, Federal Court ruled Wednesday that it has found no evidence Attawapiskat spent its money incorrectly.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2013/01/09/f-attawapiskat-finances-faq.html

Here are a couple of quotes from the letter Ross, Pope sent to Attawapiskat mangers to inform them of some of their audit's findings:

"During our audit, we noted that many general journal entries made had no supporting documents. When asked for explanations of the entries, often, none could be provided. This resulted in additional work being needed in order to substantiate amounts in several accounts.

IOW - the auditors have no idea where the money went because no records were kept and large chunks of it could have been spent lining the pockets of spence and her cronies and no one would ever know. Having no proof of malfeasance is not evidence of innocence.

This is completely different from the federal government because they know where the money went and the only question is whether it was spent on things related to terrorism. In this case there is no opportunity for more "gazebos" because the money is known to have been spent by departments on things that are relevant for departments.

Edited May 15, 2013 by TimG

[MadX]

More hate and vilification from you. In this case there is absolutely no evidence that the robo-calls had any impact on the final outcome nor that they were anything other than a few over zealous campaign workers. Your suggestion that the results of the next election might be 'stolen' because of these robocalls is simply another attempt to dehumanize people you don't like.

Why do you keep repeating the word dehumanize. I'm not out to dehumanize anyone. I never said that Harper belonged to a different species such as Homo harperbergensis, a primitive early human with archaic views and behaviours. Its in my opinion that these robocalls were ordered from higher-up. I don't know if Harper was involved himself but I suspect that some pretty high ranking party officials ordered the calls.

[TimG]

Why do you keep repeating the word dehumanize. I'm not out to dehumanize anyone.

You have said that 1) Harper is a racist 2) Harper rigs elections. Both accusations are baseless and dehumanizing. To contrast, you have also claimed that Harper wants to gut the Canada Health Act. This is simply a misrepresentation of his views but it is legitimate political criticism. You should be able to see the difference. Edited May 15, 2013 by TimG