Canadian Government corruption. How are we really doing?

[Freddy]

A means of measuring government corruption needs to be established.

Has it gotten better, since our humble beginning?

How do we compare to other nations of this world?

Some kind of data needs to be taken, and kept.

I would be surprised if such data existed, but if it did I believe it would show that our current government is cleaner then it has ever been in all of our history.

And that when we compare to other countries, Canada probably ranks in the very top for the least corrupted.

If any data exist. Please let use share and analyze it. Also, What are your opinions?

Canada is ranked 9th on this index.

http://www.worldaudit.org/corruption.htm

http://www.transparency.org/cpi2014

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption_Perceptions_Index

The idea our current government is totally corrupt is a joke when we compare to reality. What is your thoughts?

Edited August 23, 2015 by Freddy

[Freddy]

Fist off, to get the ball rolling a bit, the corruption I see in the news these days is small change compared to the sponcership scandal in my opinion. Thoughts?

Edited August 23, 2015 by Freddy

[Freddy]

My next question is. Everyone is claiming Harper needs to be held accountable for his corruption.....

We are the 9th least corrupted nation in the world...... Do you not think we are overblowing the situation just a little bit?

Edited August 23, 2015 by Freddy

[socialist]

My next question is. Everyone is claiming Harper needs to be held accountable for his corruption.....

We are the 9th least corrupted nation in the world...... Do you not think we are overblowing the situation just a little bit?

The problem is that the MSM has overblown the situtaion and the lemmings simply follow, as we can say on this forum.

[Freddy]

The problem is that the MSM has overblown the situtaion and the lemmings simply follow, as we can say on this forum.

Then Harper is absolutely right. Winning a election is only about creating a perception of something, and has nothing to do with real facts.

[Argus]

You won't provoke any kind of sensible discussion on this subject. To the Left, anything Harper does is corruption. He's a danger to democracy and all life on this Earth!

The sponsorship scandal? Phhhaw! Twarn't nothing! Just a couple of low level types doing things the sainted Mister Chretien and the most noble Mister Martin would never have approved of!

Edited August 23, 2015 by Argus

[PIK]

When you actually do look at it, harper has run a almost clean government. You will always have bad apples, but over all, he has done well. The amount of time and energy spent on this 90gs , is actually embarrassing compared to the scandals we are use to.

[cybercoma]

Except for all the convictions and charges.

When you actually do look at it, harper has run a almost clean government. You will always have bad apples, but over all, he has done well. The amount of time and energy spent on this 90gs , is actually embarrassing compared to the scandals we are use to.

[Vancouver King]

Then Harper is absolutely right. Winning a election is only about creating a perception of something, and has nothing to do with real facts.

That's the rationale of attack ads - a kernel of truth stretched of any semblance to reality, shown relentlessly, leaving an impression, a negative perception of it's victim. Evidence suggests such Tory ads are working, for the third consecutive time, to define Liberal leaders.

This time around, however, political circumstances like bad economic numbers, Duffy/PMO scandal, corruption related issues, have all conspired to leave voters with a perception of incompetence and wrong-doing by Conservatives - a perception likely to sink their re-election chances.

[waldo]

Fist off, to get the ball rolling a bit, the corruption I see in the news these days is small change compared to the sponcership scandal in my opinion. Thoughts?

and none of this is Harper Conservative corruption? --- Harper, Serial Abuser of Power: The Evidence Compiled

as before, in another thread, the standard usual suspect response to the above linked article was to point to the source... rather than even attempt to challenge a single one of 70 items listed.

and none of this is Harper Conservative corruption? --- I also put forward the following in another thread... apparently... it didn't pass the board censorship and was deleted! Let's try it again: from the non-partisan organization Voices-Voix Coalition, an exhaustive report on the current Harper Conservatives government --- Dismantling Democracy - Stifling Debate and Dissent in Canada

[Freddy]

Except for all the convictions and charges.

Yes , Canada is the 9th least corrupted nation on earth. We are definetly very corrupt.

[Freddy]

and none of this is Harper Conservative corruption? --- Harper, Serial Abuser of Power: The Evidence Compiled

as before, in another thread, the standard usual suspect response to the above linked article was to point to the source... rather than even attempt to challenge a single one of 70 items listed.

and none of this is Harper Conservative corruption? --- I also put forward the following in another thread... apparently... it didn't pass the board censorship and was deleted! Let's try it again: from the non-partisan organization Voices-Voix Coalition, an exhaustive report on the current Harper Conservatives government --- Dismantling Democracy - Stifling Debate and Dissent in Canada

And we are 9th least corrupted nation on earth. You do know we are rated incredibly well. I think you are imagining corruption that's not really happening.

You have fallen for the propaganda of those who want to create a perception there is corruption, when in fact there is hardly any.

Or you are jumping on the bandwagon because you want to help create the perception there is corrupt when in fact,hardly any exist, because of your own agenda.

Edited August 24, 2015 by Freddy

[Argus]

and none of this is Harper Conservative corruption? --- Harper, Serial Abuser of Power: The Evidence Compiled

as before, in another thread, the standard usual suspect response to the above linked article was to point to the source..

That being the Liberal party of Canada? Gee, I wonder why!

rather than even attempt to challenge a single one of 70 items listed.

Seems to be a lot of duplication on your SEVENTY items, and a lot of pathetic scraping around for something substantive to make up the numbers.

It's 'corruption' to close down some 'aquatic libraries' which were underutilized? Really? Do you even know what the word means? The UN (LOL) blasts Canada'a treatment of immigrants? Seriously? The UN? And by the way, how is that corruption? "Lapdogs appointed as watchdogs"? LOL. As if every parliament in history hadn't done the same. And AGAIN how is this corruption? I also have to hand it to a Liberal smear sheet for gall in complaining about Conservative Party patronage, given the Liberals at every level during every Liberal government have been and are masters at ensuring the loyalty of their party members is rewarded with rich government sinecures. Cutting the CBC is cortuption? Vic Toews attempt to ban porn is corruption? Revenue Canada cracking down on illegitimate charities is corruption? And... I love this one, the Tories ejected a couple of people from a campaign rally -- in 2011!

Hey, let's just throw everything we can against the wall and see if something sticks!

Pathetic. Truly sadly pathetic.

Edited August 24, 2015 by Argus

[PIK]

http://www.transparency.org/research/cpi/cpi_2005

If this is the same type of index.Harper has cleaned the place up.

[Bryan]

Except for all the convictions and charges.

Exactly. This government is so clean, that a few people spending their own money is what passes for "corruption".

http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/election/liberal-candidate-admits-he-broke-spending-laws-to-win-nomination-1.2528103

When a Conservative does it, he gets a perp walk in chains. When a Liberal does it -- they just make an arrangement for him.

[ReeferMadness]

Fist off, to get the ball rolling a bit, the corruption I see in the news these days is small change compared to the sponcership scandal in my opinion. Thoughts?

The comparison to the sponsorship scandal is specious.

The sponsorship scandal did have a worthy goal (keeping Quebec in Canada) and if that's what worked, it would be cheap at 20 times the price. In contrast, the Duffy affair had no goal but to keep the Conservative Party from embarrassment.

The independent inquiry into the sponsorship scandal was called by a Liberal PM. And then he went into an election and took his lumps. You can say what you want about the Liberals but they did call an independent inquiry and they took at least some accountability. By contrast, Harper and his PMO had numerous chances to come clean and all they did was pile one cover-up on top of another.

Most of the wrongdoing in the sponsorship scandal took place inside the Quebec wing of the Liberal Party. Maybe Chretien and the PMO knew what was going on but it's hard to say. By contrast, in the Duffy affair, the PMO is squarely implicated in the bribery of a sitting senator. And cause of the entire affair is PM Harper personally dictating a ridiculous definition of what constitutes residency. Arguably, the entire affair is his fault as his staff and senate do everything to protect him from the ramifications of his dumb political decision.

Finally, I think there is a difference in public perception. To me, Chretien is a career politician who believed in Canada. I think he and those around him believed the ends justified the means. Harper, by contrast, rode into power on this "Mr Clean" image and promised to clean up Ottawa. People are not easily inclined to forgive a raving hypocrite.

[ReeferMadness]

Exactly. This government is so clean, that a few people spending their own money is what passes for "corruption".

That's an interesting take on bribery.

[Shady]

It's small change compared to the NDP satellite office scandal as well. Almost $3 million tax dollars, and the NDP are gracious enough to agree to pay 10% of it back. Mulcair is s crook,

[waldo]

That being the Liberal party of Canada? Gee, I wonder why!

Hey, let's just throw everything we can against the wall and see if something sticks!

Pathetic. Truly sadly pathetic.

huh! You're saying, "The Tyee"... this publication... is the "Liberal Party of Canada"? Really?

it's a shame none of your Harper apologists have the slightest inclination to actually look at the trumpeted link from the OP on corruption. That 'World Audit' organization is a smallish group affiliated with the UK registered charity, "World Concern Institute"... I can certainly find that charity registered in the UK... but no contact information appears available within the registry and it appears to have... no web presence that I can determine... notwithstanding it doesn't rank within the top 1000 charities in the UK in terms of charitable donations (for whatever that is worth). But hey... good to read all you Harper apologists have gone all lefty in your accepted sources... good on ya!

in any case, that group associated with the OP linked report on corruption doesn't actually do any original analysis... doesn't actually create reports of its own. It's a group doing meta analysis of other organizations reports and offering its determination on rankings. Not to disparage the group, but from what I can determine... it might be nothing more than a handful of people doing "collective analysis"... I'm sure its more than just one guy in his basement, right? Given the in-depth review of that source/methodology done by youse guys, I expect you'll hop right on this and reinforce the legitimacy of the persons/undertaking - right?

but hold on... there is legitimacy behind some of the underlying organizations/reports I've examined - it's a shame the OP's apparent zeal didn't afford extra cycles to actually look beyond a headline! And wait... the waldoMoneyShot: of the legitimate organizations and reports I've had a cursory review of, none of them actually look at the internals workings of government within any country... and they appear to be 'from afar' perspective with broad based review criteria that has little to do with the actual "ongoing day-to-day workings of any countries government". Methodology! What a concept that apparently... none of you Harper apologists has any interest in examining... as you say, member Argus, "pathetic, truly sadly pathetic"... on your part, and on the part of other chirpers here!

[eyeball]

A means of measuring government corruption needs to be established.

Not as much as we need a system for monitoring, auditing and validating government transparency.

The idea our current government is totally corrupt is a joke when we compare to reality. What is your thoughts?

That the idea our current government is transparent is the punchline.

I don't think the indices being used by the sources you provided are adequate to the task of measuring what I think needs to be measured in supposedly advanced democracies like ours. I also think the scope of the definitions of transparency and corruption as they pertain to our governance need to broadened, codified and when used in a official capacity carry a legalistic weight that leaves no ambiguity as to what they mean and describe.

[Icebound]

It's small change compared to the NDP satellite office scandal as well. Almost $3 million tax dollars, and the NDP are gracious enough to agree to pay 10% of it back. Mulcair is s crook,

There is the small matter of 50-million G8 spending in Muskoka with questionable tender procedures......

[waldo]

It's small change compared to the NDP satellite office scandal as well. Almost $3 million tax dollars, and the NDP are gracious enough to agree to pay 10% of it back. Mulcair is s crook,

so sad you refuse to accept the legitimacy of the courts appeal process. #ShadyRushToJudgement

by the by, why won't you answer the question put to you concerning the concept of satellite offices? Why do you feel a satellite office closer to actual riding constituents is a... bad thing? Also, you keep chirping about the money yet you refused to answer the question asking you to qualify what money (if any) was 'over-and-above' that which would have been associated with the same support staff costs in Ottawa versus a satellite office?

oh wait... this is thread drift. Shame on you Shady!

[eyeball]

Harper, by contrast, rode into power on this "Mr Clean" image and promised to clean up Ottawa. People are not easily inclined to forgive a raving hypocrite.

No, Harper comes off a lot more like some Republican family values guy who gets caught posting his junk on Craigslist.

[segnosaur]

The comparison to the sponsorship scandal is specious.

The sponsorship scandal did have a worthy goal (keeping Quebec in Canada)

Technically the scandal did not have the goal of "keeping Quebec in Canada"; it had the goal of diverting funds into Liberal bank accounts.

It was the sponsership program that had the goal of "keeping Quebec in Canada", something that could (in theory) be done without the "scandal" part.

...and if that's what worked, it would be cheap at 20 times the price.

Hellen Keller could probably see that it would not have worked. Sponsoring "aren't we great?" messages seems to me to be quite a cheap ploy.

The independent inquiry into the sponsorship scandal was called by a Liberal PM.

...

You can say what you want about the Liberals but they did call an independent inquiry...

Before you go praising the Liberals, keep in mind that there was also a commons committee looking into the sponsorship scandal. This committee's work was cut short by the government.

Finally, I think there is a difference in public perception. To me, Chretien is a career politician who believed in Canada. I think he and those around him believed the ends justified the means. Harper, by contrast, rode into power on this "Mr Clean" image and promised to clean up Ottawa. People are not easily inclined to forgive a raving hypocrite.

Chretien and the Liberals were just as guilty of trying to portray the "clean" guys after the Mulroney government.

[Shady]

so sad you refuse to accept the legitimacy of the courts appeal process. #ShadyRushToJudgement

by the by, why won't you answer the question put to you concerning the concept of satellite offices? Why do you feel a satellite office closer to actual riding constituents is a... bad thing? Also, you keep chirping about the money yet you refused to answer the question asking you to qualify what money (if any) was 'over-and-above' that which would have been associated with the same support staff costs in Ottawa versus a satellite office?

oh wait... this is thread drift. Shame on you Shady!

If they didn't do anything wrong, then why did they agree to pay back even 10%? Answer, because they did do something wrong, and their entire party is corrupt.