Jump to content

Liberal rumours.


Army Guy

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, ExFlyer said:

So, you are comparing selling your fish at an open  published market value the same as lobbying for a million or billion dollar closed bid contract?? 

No I'm simply demonstrating that monitoring works. 

Quote

Quota? nothing to do with lobbying. All to do with who has the biggest fleet and can pay the cost.

You simply have no understanding of the history of fisheries allocation and the intense lobbying that attends it. I guess It never dawned on you to wonder why our most important fisheries on both coasts are such a shambles.  

Quote

I am not a lobbyist but I do know how business is done, in and out of government. deals are made everyday on ,around and, under the table. Keeping and not showing your hand is how it is done.

Yup that's how it's done alright.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, eyeball said:

No I'm simply demonstrating that monitoring works. 

You simply have no understanding of the history of fisheries allocation and the intense lobbying that attends it. I guess It never dawned on you to wonder why our most important fisheries on both coasts are such a shambles.  

Yup that's how it's done alright.

No, you are explaining fishing regs that have federally regulated quotas and sold on open markets, not request for proposals for products, services or contractions..

The topic is not fishing and nothing to do with lobbying.

Again, you have no understanding of business. Selling your fish is business but, in a completely different category and does not fit this discussion. Imagine if you had to go to every buyer and sell your fish.... but you had to undersell to get rid of your catch. You want it to be done in full transparency so all the other boats will know what you are willing to sell for??

Edited by ExFlyer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

No, you are explaining fishing regs that have federally regulated quotas and sold on open markets, not request for proposals for products, services or contractions.

You're being disingenuous. I'm explaining that people can get around the regulations by lobbying regulators behind closed doors.

Quote

The topic is not fishing and nothing to do with lobbying.

You're saying lobbying has nothing to do with Liberals?

Quote

Again, you have no understanding of business. Selling your fish is business but, in a completely different category and does not fit this discussion.

You asked me what I did. Don't tell me I have no understanding of business and then tell me.

Quote

Selling your fish is business...

So is protecting the public's interest by accounting for my opportunity to exploit a public resource, like lobbying is to avoid having to consider the public interest. 

 

Quote

Imagine if you had to go to every buyer and sell your fish.... but you had to undersell to get rid of your catch. You want it to be done in full transparency so all the other boats will know what you are willing to sell for??

No not disingenuous...just plain stupid.  You said something about being off topic? That's hilarious. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, eyeball said:

You're being disingenuous. I'm explaining that people can get around the regulations by lobbying regulators behind closed doors.

You're saying lobbying has nothing to do with Liberals?

You asked me what I did. Don't tell me I have no understanding of business and then tell me.

So is protecting the public's interest by accounting for my opportunity to exploit a public resource, like lobbying is to avoid having to consider the public interest. 

 

No not disingenuous...just plain stupid.  You said something about being off topic? That's hilarious. 

Disingenuous? For telling you how it is and that it is not illegal or unwanted or unneeded? Wake up and smell the real world :)

Yup, lobbying has been going on in business and governments from the beginning, everywhere in the world.

You do not know about business. You know how to sell your fish to market.

You, protecting public interest??? You have as much right to fish under the regulations as Jimmie Pattisons fleet. If he does it better, that is not a fault, it is better business.

You are off topic and to call me stupid because you cannot defend your stance??? The topic is rumours circulating about the Liberal party shake up and potential early election..

 

 

Edited by ExFlyer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ExFlyer said:

You are off topic and to call me stupid because you cannot defend your stance???

No, because you can't follow the topic.

Quote

The topic is rumours circulating about the Liberal party shake up and potential early election..

The thread is about rumours and the Liberal party. Rumours go hand in hand with politics and secrecy, especially when it involves the Liberal Party.

Like you say, it's been going on forever.  Nothing to see or hear cuz it's secret...move along move along.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, eyeball said:

No, because you can't follow the topic.

The thread is about rumours and the Liberal party. Rumours go hand in hand with politics and secrecy, especially when it involves the Liberal Party.

Like you say, it's been going on forever.  Nothing to see or hear cuz it's secret...move along move along.

 

facepalm.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, eyeball said:

If you also stuck your fingers in your ears and sang la la la you'd really clinch the impression you prefer all the secrecy that keeps the public out of the public's business.

No, i live in the real world. You are the one in La La Land.

There is the business of government and some, by nature, has to remain confidential.

Not sure what makes you think you have the right to know what goes on. Public business is made public. Confidential business and dealings (in business and government) are kept confidential.

Even you don't share all your information and dealings with the public, let alone with your competitors.

You are very naive LOL

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ExFlyer said:

No, i live in the real world. You are the one in La La Land.

There is the business of government and some, by nature, has to remain confidential.

Very little of it in my opinion. I'm willing to negotiate.

Quote

Not sure what makes you think you have the right to know what goes on.

A little thing called the public's interest.

Quote

Public business is made public.

So the politicians and deputy ministers and such tell us after emerging from the secrecy of the chambers but given the depth and breadth of mistrust in the public's perception there's clearly something missing in the translation.

Quote

 

Confidential business and dealings (in business and government) are kept confidential.

Even you don't share all your information and dealings with the public, let alone with your competitors.

 

Why are you conflating the in-house privacy of a business with government secrecy and the public's interest? 

Quote

You are very naive LOL

No, like everybody else I'm simply in the dark about the nature of much of the business the government is conducting in my name in secret. You seem to think it's naive and perhaps even audacious that the public might express any concern about knowing their interest is being adequately addressed and or protected. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, I am Groot said:

Given how people have tired of Trudeau and his continuing betrayal of almost everything he originally campaigned for the Tories ought to be higher than that. The distance and dislike between Left and Right has grown considerably since Harper's first election. I don't see them getting in unless they're in majority territory. Under any other circumstances the NDP, and possibly even BQ will team up to ensure Trudeau stays in power.

And to do that he's got to come up with policies that strike a chord with Canadians. Fleshed-out policies that address pressing concerns. No niggling little tax breaks tailored towards specific voting blocks.  The Liberals are going to hit the Tories with a big, negative, scary-scary campaign again, just as they did the last two elections. And Poilievre is a lot more vulnerable thanks to his stupid embracing of cryptocurrency and support for the trucker convoy.

To what degree the distance between them is, todays polls are not going to accurately determine that, the fact is there is a huge gap and it is growing steadily thanks to liberal gaffs almost weekly now. As for NDP numbers i think they are going to take a huge hit a lot of NDP voters are not happy with the coalition, I think they will actually lose seats next election. Not sure what you percentage of votes you need for a majority but it can't be far off. 

I think PP raise in numbers are becasue he continues to hit the right topics Canadians care about, inflation, prices of food, fuel, basically everything, housing availability and affordability, Health care, he has already spelled out policies in these areas. And I'm sure he has more detailed plans cooked up for election time and if he does not then Justin deserves another term. 

Of course the liberals are going to try everything to stop the conservatives, and a good chunk of liberal voters will buy into all of that, but these are votes that were never going to be conservative any ways. And come on the last 2 conservative candidates gave Justin the election on a platter, with a huge ribbon tied around it. It was if Justin paid them to screw things up. 

Yes PP has made some Gaffs, Justin makes a career out making Gaffs and liberals eat that shit up. People want change, and thats what is going to drive this election, and it would not surprise me if the cons win big. It is time for the right to swing things back towards the center once again. 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ExFlyer said:

No, i live in the real world. You are the one in La La Land.

There is the business of government and some, by nature, has to remain confidential.

Not sure what makes you think you have the right to know what goes on. Public business is made public. Confidential business and dealings (in business and government) are kept confidential.

Even you don't share all your information and dealings with the public, let alone with your competitors.

You are very naive LOL

I have been listening to eyeball rant on this topic for years now,  and it makes sense in many ways , improving transparency is a good thing, so is building trust with tax payers, so is someone watching the gate to ensure people stay honest.

i mean a liberal MP was sent to the ethic commissionaire for giving a contract to a friend. and only got a slap on bottom, she said sorry, while millions of tax payers dollars went to her friend. Why would an MP have contracting ability to start with? 

Not sure why most governmental business can not be made public, unless it is a matter of national security. I mean Justin did promise a transparent government. And the entire transaction does not have to be made transparent, but who what when and how much and why the chose a company should all be made public, it maybe already. whats not made public are things you talked about early, like how many other governmental departments got their fingers stuck in the pie, and why, where every dollar is going and why?

We are not asking for Kentucky fried chickens secret receipt, but we do want to know what the contract is for, how much it costs, etc... 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/13/2022 at 4:39 PM, Jack9000 said:

well considering pierre got destroyed last night in a by election in the areas he needs to win  in a election i aint scared of one lol...

They weren't going to win. And their vote count was the abiut same as last time, and they spent very little on it. It's a nothing burger.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Army Guy said:

I have been listening to eyeball rant on this topic for years now,  and it makes sense in many ways , improving transparency is a good thing, so is building trust with tax payers, so is someone watching the gate to ensure people stay honest.

i mean a liberal MP was sent to the ethic commissionaire for giving a contract to a friend. and only got a slap on bottom, she said sorry, while millions of tax payers dollars went to her friend. Why would an MP have contracting ability to start with? 

Not sure why most governmental business can not be made public, unless it is a matter of national security. I mean Justin did promise a transparent government. And the entire transaction does not have to be made transparent, but who what when and how much and why the chose a company should all be made public, it maybe already. whats not made public are things you talked about early, like how many other governmental departments got their fingers stuck in the pie, and why, where every dollar is going and why?

We are not asking for Kentucky fried chickens secret receipt, but we do want to know what the contract is for, how much it costs, etc... 

Many members have had ethics problems thinking they can do business or things as they had done it before being elected. No MP or minister can give a contracts for services or products (actually I believe they do have a minimum limit they can spend outside of the procurement process). There are "standing offer" open contracts that have previously qualified companies listed which can be used for products sand services without a need to RFP's.... but they have a monetary limit (not to exceed by).

To be clear, almost all government business is made public.... after contract award. The request for proposals are public but the bids by companies and sometimes (often) the bid evaluation criteria are kept confidential to protect businesses and their operations. The various departments "fingers in the pie" very often increase the cost of products and services in order to give "fair share" to various regions of the country. Those processes have been manipulated by all governments in power for many many decades.

The monumental budget document is there for anyone to read and it actually lets you know where every dollar went.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Army Guy said:

i mean a liberal MP was sent to the ethic commissionaire for giving a contract to a friend. and only got a slap on bottom, she said sorry, while millions of tax payers dollars went to her friend. Why would an MP have contracting ability to start with? 

My understanding is that it was not millions of dollars. It was $28,000, but the amount doesn't matter. It is the principle of ministerial responsibility. She should have resigned from cabinet. 

 

15 hours ago, Army Guy said:

Of course the liberals are going to try everything to stop the conservatives, and a good chunk of liberal voters will buy into all of that, but these are votes that were never going to be conservative any ways. And come on the last 2 conservative candidates gave Justin the election on a platter, with a huge ribbon tied around it. It was if Justin paid them to screw things up. 

Yes PP has made some Gaffs, Justin makes a career out making Gaffs and liberals eat that shit up. People want change, and thats what is going to drive this election, and it would not surprise me if the cons win big. It is time for the right to swing things back towards the center once again. 

If the Socreds could not beat the Grits with Mr. O'Toole, I cannot see them winning a majority with Mr. Poilievre. The current leader is firmly in the reform / Socialist Credit camp. His ads are slick and entertaining but so far, I haven't seen any bridge building with the other parties. Are BQ or NDP supporters willing to work with him? 

He is good at saying there is an issue in healthcare, (no s**t Sherlock), but I never hear him say how much more money he will invest in it, or where he will get the money. His campaign against the measures that would help alleviate the pressures on the system are making the problem worse. He seems to be saying these are the problems, but I won't tell you, the voters, how he plans to solve them. "Trust me." Where have we heard that before?

If Mr. Poilievre wants to have any hope of beating Prime Minister Trudeau, he has to start eating the Liberals' lunch.

 

Edited by Queenmandy85
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, ironstone said:

Whatever moves the Liberals make it's always going to be business as usual for them at the end of the day. Woke policies that don't actually help the average Canadian. And they will continue to give us a giant FU when it comes to yet more ethics violations.

 

It is funny how penny anti the current scandals are. Have we forgotten the days of Mike Pearson's government? The Spenser scandal, the furniture scandals, and the ultimate Lucien Rivard scandal, all happening at once. Then there was MacKenzie King's customs scandal. The modern day grits are little leaguers compared to the NHL level scandals of Liberal Governments past. I guess we should be grateful.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:

My understanding is that it was not millions of dollars. It was $28,000, but the amount doesn't matter. It is the principle of ministerial responsibility. She should have resigned from cabinet. 

 

If the Socreds could not beat the Grits with Mr. O'Toole, I cannot see them winning a majority with Mr. Poilievre. The current leader is firmly in the reform / Socialist Credit camp. His ads are slick and entertaining but so far, I haven't seen any bridge building with the other parties. Are BQ or NDP supporters willing to work with him? 

He is good at saying there is an issue in healthcare, (no s**t Sherlock), but I never hear him say how much more money he will invest in it, or where he will get the money. His campaign against the measures that would help alleviate the pressures on the system are making the problem worse. He seems to be saying these are the problems, but I won't tell you, the voters, how he plans to solve them. "Trust me." Where have we heard that before?

 

Your right it was not for millions, but far less than that.  I've talked with some military logistics guys and they, that before anyone can assign a contract one must take a contracting course where all the rules are laid out , the course is not a military one per say , but one from PWSG.  So she would have known she could not contract out to her friends or relatives. Not sure the rules for MP's but for anyone else the consequences are much worse, than having to say I'm sorry.

One can say the same thing about Justin plan for health care, why is he holding out, does he have a detailed plan that he is or going to release to the public.

That being said i understand why people are hesitant to vote for PP, he is an attack dog, that was a job assigned to him and he is good at it. but i also think come election time the tone is going to change , for everyone, and details will have to come out. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:

It is funny how penny anti the current scandals are. Have we forgotten the days of Mike Pearson's government? The Spenser scandal, the furniture scandals, and the ultimate Lucien Rivard scandal, all happening at once. Then there was MacKenzie King's customs scandal. The modern day grits are little leaguers compared to the NHL level scandals of Liberal Governments past. I guess we should be grateful.

This is not a huge amount of money but it's kind of a double standard to me. I remember a Conservative that got raked over the coals for $16 orange juice. Bev Oda resigned over that incident. She got tons of negative press for her behavior which is fair game but for the fact that far worse behavior by a number of Liberals, including Justin Trudeau, gets far less attention in the media.

I don't know, perhaps the standards of the media today are just lower than ever and the bias is at its highest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Army Guy said:

Your right it was not for millions, but far less than that.  I've talked with some military logistics guys and they, that before anyone can assign a contract one must take a contracting course where all the rules are laid out , the course is not a military one per say , but one from PWSG.  So she would have known she could not contract out to her friends or relatives. Not sure the rules for MP's but for anyone else the consequences are much worse, than having to say I'm sorry.

One can say the same thing about Justin plan for health care, why is he holding out, does he have a detailed plan that he is or going to release to the public.

That being said i understand why people are hesitant to vote for PP, he is an attack dog, that was a job assigned to him and he is good at it. but i also think come election time the tone is going to change , for everyone, and details will have to come out. 

Just want to clarify a small thing. The service was to a communications company. The MP's office required the service so they went to the "standing offer" I mentioned earlier. they went with requirements to Public Services and Procurement Canada (PSPC) with the requirements.

PSPC then went to the stranding offer and put it out to any company that wanted to bid. The evaluation was done by PSPC and several companies may have qualified. the lowest bid would be presented to the MP's office. Then the contract awarded.

Yes, if there was any connection to the MP, the MP should have disclosed affiliation. Most likely, the MP was not aware and the minions in the office (my biggest PIA while in procurement) would have just moved forward. Not defending, just explaining what might have happened. The MP may not have even known who the contract was with until much later.

As for MP consequences, well, they are more severe than the normal business for person because as an individual, you generally pick and choose who you want to deal with.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, ironstone said:

This is not a huge amount of money but it's kind of a double standard to me. I remember a Conservative that got raked over the coals for $16 orange juice. Bev Oda resigned over that incident. She got tons of negative press for her behavior which is fair game but for the fact that far worse behavior by a number of Liberals, including Justin Trudeau, gets far less attention in the media.

I don't know, perhaps the standards of the media today are just lower than ever and the bias is at its highest.

To be fair, it was not just the $16 orange juice. It was huge record of overspending and extravagance on only one of her expense accounts. Changed hotels (from the free one provided by the hosts), hired limos, large dinner charges and smoked in her non smoking hotel room incurring $250 charge. There was more but she quit.

"$5,500 in limousine rides at the 2006 Juno Awards in Halifax.[13] In 2008, she was accused of hiding over $17,000 of limousine expenses billed to taxpayers"

 

She had a poor record.

 

https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2012/07/24/bev_oda_repaid_five_inappropriate_expenses_following_lavish_spending_story.html

Edited by ExFlyer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Army Guy said:

I have been listening to eyeball rant on this topic for years now,  and it makes sense in many ways , improving transparency is a good thing, so is building trust with tax payers, so is someone watching the gate to ensure people stay honest.

Yeah I'm not really seeing what the problem is with this thought process.  The corruption in government (greased palms, lobbying, cushy jobs after political retirement) goes well beyond what we know.  Transparency would be welcome.  

16 hours ago, Army Guy said:

i mean a liberal MP was sent to the ethic commissionaire for giving a contract to a friend. and only got a slap on bottom, she said sorry, while millions of tax payers dollars went to her friend. Why would an MP have contracting ability to start with? 

This I found truly pathetic.  I can't see any reason why this woman keeps her post, considering the glaring and obvious nature of the offense and the official censure.  Bev Oda lost her cabinet position over an expensive glass of orange juice she expensed back in 2012, but this warrants nothing but a gentle admonishment?  

16 hours ago, Army Guy said:

Not sure why most governmental business can not be made public, unless it is a matter of national security. I mean Justin did promise a transparent government. 

Agreed, but this has been an ongoing farce.  After the sponsorship scandal, Harper promised transparency and created the PBO etc, but then ended up muzzling all of his MP's, spoke rarely to media and feuded with the PBO when they weren't singing his praises.  Justin seems to be carrying on this fine tradition.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

To be fair, it was not just the $16 orange juice. It was huge record of overspending and extravagance on her expense account.

I'm not going to defend Bev Oda. I'm just saying that if she had been a Liberal she likely would not have faced anywhere near the same pressure and would not resign either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

By previous standards, today’s scandals are nothing. A $16 juice? The PM asks the AG to ask the prosecuted for a deferred prosecution and the AG replies no, not gonna happen and that’s the end of it. Compare that with a Minister of Customs being part of a smuggling ring and three cabinet members accepting bribes of furniture at the same time as the Parliamentary Secretary to PM Pearson offering a bribe to get a mafia hit man released and the Spenser affair. The Canadian government just doesn’t do scandals like they used to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why would any cabinet minister worry about Ethics violations when the penalty is $500 at most.  A pittance.  The only real penalty is if the voters are upset and it affects the next election.  But it doesn't seem to.  Most voters don't seem to care about scandals.  Trudeau keeps getting re-elected in spite of the scandals.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,771
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    joebialek
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Matthew earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • CouchPotato earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • CouchPotato went up a rank
      Contributor
    • Akalupenn earned a badge
      First Post
    • CouchPotato went up a rank
      Explorer
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...