Senate Expense Details - A Different Perspective

[Keepitsimple]

In light of the incredible media focus on the Senate scandal and the rhetoric that "they're all crooks", I find it heartening that under the every-nickle-and-dime lens (covering two full years) of the Auditor General - 81 of the 115 senators who were audited had no irregularities....none. Of the 34 who did, 11 were for less than $8000. What this shows me is that 81 Senators clearly knew what was right - and what was wrong.......and I'm prepared to give some (perhaps quite a few) of the 34 the benefit of the doubt that there was no intent to fleece the system for personal gain.

There's an important lesson here in human nature - and why there are rules and regulations in business. If rules leave gaps for personal gain or corruption with no effective oversight, someone will always come along to exploit those gaps - it's human nature.

And one more point - there are 81 severely pi$$ed-off Senators who have had their good names sullied by what will eventually amount to a small minority of Senators with a faulty moral compass. Cleaning it up will not be a monumental task - the entitlement "culture" that plays so well in the media is not as apparent as the headlines scream.

Link: http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/exclusive-breakdown-of-sums-that-30-senators-are-alleged-to-owe-1.2411218

Edited June 10, 2015 by Keepitsimple

[Topaz]

I know this is about the senate but the AG was asked about the MP's being audited and he said it would be too expensive but I really don't think t that should be an issue because federal governments spend money on anything THEY want , so why can't the taxpayers? By having these audits in both the House and the senate, I don't think taxpayers would have to worry about too many cheaters in the future. Also, I think they should get rid of the the internal economy board in both, House and the Senate, no more secrets from Canadians. Thoughts? http://www.canada.com/News/politics/House+Commons+audit+would+expensive+says/11122834/story.html

[poochy]

And 23 million to uncover less than a million in bad spending. How many years of the senate could we have had at the current rate of bad spending for 23 million? Not that im defending them, if it disappeared tomorrow i wouldn't miss it, and throw the really bad ones in jail for all i care, it just seems like an unbalanced response, in fact it reminds me of my employer, who will pay people handsomely to ensure that other people get nothing more than they are entitled to and in fact attempt to ensure they don't know all of the things they are entitled to. Spending far more to do this than what they are saving.

[PIK]

I would like a audit on that 23 million.

[Big Guy]

I agree with Keepitsimple - At different times in my career, I have been in a position where certain activities were covered by my employer and certain activities and purchases were not. What most of us did was to submit them all and let the company treasurer make those decisions. Do we not do the same thing in our income tax returns? If you are not sure of a deduction you claim it anyway and let the government employees make a decision if it is acceptable or not.

In these days of "Gotcha Journalism" everybody gets swept up with the same crusading broom.

[PIK]

I would like a audit on the SC.

[hitops]

Considering the CBC costs something like $700M per year, I'm not too upset by a million from a few bad actors. The fact that they operate on the honour system in the first place, and that they are not elected, are far bigger problems IMO.

[Topaz]

My view, I think tax payers should demand an update, overview of the House and the Senate and take more power out of the hands of MP, Senators and PMs. They should be stricter rules with expenses and freebies. They should be working so many hours and not have the times off as they have for many years and they shouldn't be able to give themselves a pay raise!! Many changes are needed in the House and the Senate and by doing so the taxpayers could saving millions. I also think new rules should be change in the House about answers and half-truths being said, when MPs are questioned. Canada is getting a new House of Commons by 2018-19, so hopeful ALL the changes can be made by that time and Canadians should demand it from their MPs.

[Boges]

People can get all worked up thinking $90,000 is going to bring down a Prime Minister.

But $23 million to find out how $1 million was spent? Meh? SMH. \

That's the scandal if you ask me.

Edited June 11, 2015 by Boges

[On Guard for Thee]

People can get all worked up thinking $90,000 is going to bring down a Prime Minister.

But $23 million to find out how $1 million was spent? Meh? SMH. \

That's the scandal if you ask me.

Whatever it takes to rid us of Harper is what people are getting all worked up about.

[Boges]

Whatever it takes to rid us of Harper is what people are getting all worked up about.

Awww so you'll admit it's much ado about nothing and you're just going to cling to anything that "you think" will get the population at large outraged.

When you look at the pools your man JT is sinking like a stone and in the midst of all these scandals the CPC are still in the game and the campaign hasn't even started yet.

[On Guard for Thee]

Awww so you'll admit it's much ado about nothing and you're just going to cling to anything that "you think" will get the population at large outraged.

When you look at the pools your man JT is sinking like a stone and in the midst of all these scandals the CPC are still in the game and the campaign hasn't even started yet.

Awww, and as the campaign approaches, so do the really good parts of the Duffy trial. Harper couldn't have imagined a worse timing. Bribing a sitting senator is certainly NOT much ado about nothing. Dont get lost trying to use dollar values to differentiate what is a scandal and what is a criminal offence.

[Boges]

Awww, and as the campaign approaches, so do the really good parts of the Duffy trial. Harper couldn't have imagined a worse timing. Bribing a sitting senator is certainly NOT much ado about nothing. Dont get lost trying to use dollar values to differentiate what is a scandal and what is a criminal offence.

And by now I thought Harper would have quit in embarrassment. Has that happened yet. Wasn't JT like 10 points up when this story broke?

It'll be funny all the outrage mongers response if Duffy gets off.

[On Guard for Thee]

And by now I thought Harper would have quit in embarrassment. Has that happened yet. Wasn't JT like 10 points up when this story broke?

It'll be funny all the outrage mongers response if Duffy gets off.

Im hoping Harper gets called to the stand. He would need a little (lot) coaching that his endless talking points wont work there.

[Boges]

Im hoping Harper gets called to the stand. He would need a little (lot) coaching that his endless talking points wont work there.

So instead of baseless predictions, you're just hoping for things now. Progress!

[On Guard for Thee]

So instead of baseless predictions, you're just hoping for things now. Progress!

Dont know what predictions you are talking about, but the trial is a fact (happening as we speak) and Wright will testify. A little verification as to what we all know what occurred in the PMO. Now that will be progress.

[Boges]

Dont know what predictions you are talking about, but the trial is a fact (happening as we speak) and Wright will testify. A little verification as to what we all know what occurred in the PMO. Now that will be progress.

You weren't one of the people thinking Harper would either quit or call a snap election to avoid the "embarrassment" from the Duffy trial?

[On Guard for Thee]

You weren't one of the people thinking Harper would either quit or call a snap election to avoid the "embarrassment" from the Duffy trial?

Nah, he hemmed himself in on that option in an interview with Mansbridge. Bet he wishes he could do that one over again. Im sure he hadn't figured on all the delays backing the trial up to election time. Interesting to see him now flailing around on the carbon issue. Must be feeling a bit desperate

Edited June 11, 2015 by On Guard for Thee

[jacee]

And by now I thought Harper would have quit in embarrassment.

Harper can't be troubled by a conscience he doesn't have.

.

[Boges]

Nah, he hemmed himself in on that option in an interview with Mansbridge. Bet he wishes he could do that one over again. Im sure he hadn't figured on all the delays backing the trial up to election time. Interesting to see him now flailing around on the carbon issue. Must be feeling a bit desperate

Again a baseless assumption.

[On Guard for Thee]

Again a baseless assumption.

Nope.Maybe you missed it. He just recently went on the record saying we must start getting rid of all carbon based energy sources. Of course he somehow got Merkal et al to switch the time frame out to the end of the century, so again, quite obviously a toothless promise designed simply to dupe potential voters, in true Harper style.

[Boges]

Nope.Maybe you missed it. He just recently went on the record saying we must start getting rid of all carbon based energy sources. Of course he somehow got Merkal et al to switch the time frame out to the end of the century, so again, quite obviously a toothless promise designed simply to dupe potential voters, in true Harper style.

And he said that has to do with Duffy. Or you're just ass-u-ming it is.

[overthere]

OGFT is obviously the desperate one, the trial is not going to result in Harpers resignation and will have very little impact on the election this fall.

Spending $23M to track $1M is commensurate with much in governemt operations. Return-on-investment calculations are rarely part of any business analysis in the public sector. Except for one critical body- Canada Revenue Agency. They tend to invest their time and money where there will be a positive cash flow.

[On Guard for Thee]

And he said that has to do with Duffy. Or you're just ass-u-ming it is.

Huh...nought to do with Duffy. I reckon is you doing the ass u ming here.

[Boges]

Huh...nought to do with Duffy. I reckon is you doing the ass u ming here.

That's what this thread is about. The Senate Expense issue. So why are you thread drifting?

Edited June 11, 2015 by Boges