ExFlyer Posted January 1, 2023 Report Share Posted January 1, 2023 1 hour ago, I am Groot said: You don't resolve conflict of interest by saying "Whoops. Sorry I got caught. I'll try to be more careful next time." By all folks accused in the past, you do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExFlyer Posted January 1, 2023 Report Share Posted January 1, 2023 1 hour ago, I am Groot said: Maybe you could enlighten the federal ethics commissioner. For some reason he seems to lack your understanding of standing offers and how the system works. Why? The ethics commissioner has done nothing so far, no ruling. I am not even sure it is going before him. He is fully aware of the Standing Offers that is why so many of the accused get off. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExFlyer Posted January 1, 2023 Report Share Posted January 1, 2023 44 minutes ago, myata said: If you manage to get through it, you still won't get the one answer: who gets a "call up", contract etc yada, how transparency is assured and any conflicts of interests prevented. Independent supplier will get it, or a good buddy of the minister. Go figure, from the text provided. Such a trifle, right why bother? Who cares? This is Canada! You are so ignorant of the process, it is not even funny any more. I provided links and the entire process is in there. read about it instead of making unfounded assertions. Understand this too, the minister may not even know who gets contracts to do what. The process allows designated people within the organization to call up against those offers and arrangements. If you are so naive to think a minister or director or branch executive knows the minutiae details of all operations, you clearly are not thinking clearly. You are a huge complainer about management, CEO's, parliamentarians, salaries etc and that indicates to me that you are a peon that has never progressed in their career to a level where you get to know how things work in business. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I am Groot Posted January 1, 2023 Report Share Posted January 1, 2023 30 minutes ago, ExFlyer said: Why? The ethics commissioner has done nothing so far, no ruling. I am not even sure it is going before him. OTTAWA - International Trade Minister Mary Ng apologized Tuesday after the federal ethics commissioner concluded she broke the rules by awarding a contract to a friend https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/trade-minister-mary-ng-broke-ethics-rules-over-contract-to-friend-commissioner-rules-1.6192820 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
myata Posted January 1, 2023 Report Share Posted January 1, 2023 18 minutes ago, ExFlyer said: get to know how things work in business. A typical case of clueless in Canada. It's easy really: not the process invented; not what's printed on a pretty paper, but: how does it work? Does it work a) cleanly b) transparently and c) efficiently for the owners, not some abstract "Canada" but us, the taxpayers, the owners of the whole thing? Do we, in this 21st century know always, in every case who happy buddies paid our money to, how much for what and why without competition? That is the correct answer, and the paper feel free to use in the washroom or any other suitable way. There will be no difference, I can assure you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I am Groot Posted January 1, 2023 Report Share Posted January 1, 2023 (edited) 34 minutes ago, ExFlyer said: By all folks accused in the past, you do. In the past such folks resigned in shame. But that was when politicians had any shame. Edited January 1, 2023 by I am Groot 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
myata Posted January 1, 2023 Report Share Posted January 1, 2023 1 minute ago, I am Groot said: apologized... she broke the rules by awarding a contract to a friend OMG. Really. What world is it outside, please help me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I am Groot Posted January 1, 2023 Report Share Posted January 1, 2023 25 minutes ago, ExFlyer said: You are so ignorant of the process, it is not even funny any more. I provided links and the entire process is in there. read about it instead of making unfounded assertions. Understand this too, the minister may not even know who gets contracts to do what. The process allows designated people within the organization to call up against those offers and arrangements. In the lead-up to Ng's office giving a contract to Alvaro's firm, Dion said that in March 2020 -- when the country was first grappling with the arrival of the COVID-19 pandemic -- Ng "initiated an informal telephone conversation" with her friend to discuss "her concern that she wanted to be best prepared to address Canadians and businesses." Dion said both confirmed to him that they did not discuss a contract with each other, with Ng saying "the entire process was delegated" to her chief of staff, who was aware of the friendship. This wasn't someone who just happened to be a friend of the minister just happening to get a contract. She and the minister discussed it and then the minister had her chief of staff do the contract. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I am Groot Posted January 1, 2023 Report Share Posted January 1, 2023 Just now, myata said: OMG. Really. What world is it outside, please help me. One where people in government doing such things is against the rules. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
myata Posted January 1, 2023 Report Share Posted January 1, 2023 1 minute ago, I am Groot said: One where people in government doing such things The third one, to be absolutely clear. Doing, having no shame, when caught routinely apologizing and keep doing it (why not?). Usual business, standard procedure - in the third world. Please all welcome. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExFlyer Posted January 1, 2023 Report Share Posted January 1, 2023 (edited) 1 hour ago, I am Groot said: OTTAWA - International Trade Minister Mary Ng apologized Tuesday after the federal ethics commissioner concluded she broke the rules by awarding a contract to a friend https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/trade-minister-mary-ng-broke-ethics-rules-over-contract-to-friend-commissioner-rules-1.6192820 And did nothing... my point. "Based on the documents provided by both Ms. Ng and Ms. Alvaro, Ms. Ng does not appear to have been involved in the subsequent discussions pertaining to the negotiation of the final terms of the contract,"" Edited January 1, 2023 by ExFlyer Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExFlyer Posted January 1, 2023 Report Share Posted January 1, 2023 1 hour ago, myata said: A typical case of clueless i.... I can assure you. The only one "clueless" is you. That is the most obvious thing in your post. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExFlyer Posted January 1, 2023 Report Share Posted January 1, 2023 1 hour ago, I am Groot said: In the past such folks resigned in shame. But that was when politicians had any shame. Baloney...make that double baloney with mustard LOL Read the reports I linked. lots of accusations and innuendos and very few, if any, repercussions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
myata Posted January 1, 2023 Report Share Posted January 1, 2023 (edited) 1 hour ago, I am Groot said: Ng saying "the entire process was delegated" to her chief of staff, who was aware of the friendship. Say "third world", can you? "Delegated", right. Edited January 1, 2023 by myata Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExFlyer Posted January 1, 2023 Report Share Posted January 1, 2023 1 hour ago, I am Groot said: One where people in government doing such things is against the rules. What rules? A commissioner saying one thing but doing nothing clearly indicates there are no broke rules 4 minutes ago, myata said: Say "third world", can you? "Delegated", right. You are so naive.... I keep saying that about you so it must be true LOL Bosses, ministers, CEO's have delegates doing the menial work for them. You and Groot must both be very low level workers, if you even work. Both do not seem to have a clue how business is structured, managed and done. You seem and sound like people on the very bottom of the totem pole and never climb up so all you do is complain about your lot in life and are pissed everyone else is doing better. Not know how and when to do things and not wanting or accepting holds you back. But hey, every business needs peons. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExFlyer Posted January 1, 2023 Report Share Posted January 1, 2023 1 hour ago, I am Groot said: In the lead-up to Ng's office giving a contract to Alvaro's firm, Dion said that in March 2020 -- when the country was first grappling with the arrival of the COVID-19 pandemic -- Ng "initiated an informal telephone conversation" with her friend to discuss "her concern that she wanted to be best prepared to address Canadians and businesses." Dion said both confirmed to him that they did not discuss a contract with each other, with Ng saying "the entire process was delegated" to her chief of staff, who was aware of the friendship. This wasn't someone who just happened to be a friend of the minister just happening to get a contract. She and the minister discussed it and then the minister had her chief of staff do the contract. I guess what you are saying is once elected, a person is no longer allowed to talk to or ask, or question anyone that they knew prior to getting elected? Oh and "Dion said both confirmed to him that they did not discuss a contract with each other, with Ng saying "the entire process was delegated" to her chief of staff, who was aware of the friendship." So, as I said, using the Supply Arrangement tor Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
myata Posted January 1, 2023 Report Share Posted January 1, 2023 Hey Corruption hello! We miss you here... need you, really! Please hurry and don't forget what was that, "Supply Arrangement" will ya Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
West Posted January 1, 2023 Author Report Share Posted January 1, 2023 2 hours ago, ExFlyer said: By all folks accused in the past, you do. Only liberals. They seem to be able to say "whoops sorry" and we are all suppose to believe they are gods among us and virtuous therefore can't question them Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Army Guy Posted January 1, 2023 Report Share Posted January 1, 2023 On 12/31/2022 at 2:13 AM, herbie said: OMG they'll find out one day a Liberal MP paid his own kid to shovel the driveway! What a scandal! A whole $20 misused in a conflict of interest. Outrage!!! It was 2 contracts and a wee bity more than 20 dollars of tax payers money. But one would have to have morals and values, like honesty, integrity, be trust worthy, (to mention a few) to see what is wrong with the whole mess, something liberal voters do not have, not to mention to serve the country first and not her friends. There are some standards we would like to see our national government up hold, putting money in friends purses is not one of them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Army Guy Posted January 1, 2023 Report Share Posted January 1, 2023 On 12/31/2022 at 1:34 PM, ExFlyer said: What BS. Much ado about nothing. The Standing Offers are used everyday by every parliamentarian and department. It is used by every federal office throughout the country for goods and services under $25K. Supply Arrangements are another way goods and services can be procured. https://www.canada.ca/en/employment-social-development/programs/laws-regulations/labour/interpretations-policies/standing-offers.html This is common knowledge. Just because you don't know is not the fault of government nor is it a scam, it is your own ignorance of standard procedures. No scam, just everyday business. It could be a scam...., if the minister instructed the contract go to her friend then it is an illegal purchase regardless if the company could provide the service or goods. "It is called a conflict of interest", and it is written in the policies regarding any government purchasing. When you write your section 32, 33 34 to get purchasing authority it is explained in great detail, another source would be to ask any Base comp controller as i did. It is used to preserve transparency. Or if the purchaser did not know of the relationship between minister and contractor, then it could be conceived as an honest mistake, and further contracts should be null and void. In this case there were 2 contracts, not very good optics. In this case all the details have not been leaked, so hard to tell. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Army Guy Posted January 1, 2023 Report Share Posted January 1, 2023 22 hours ago, herbie said: This is a chicken shit petty cash squabble, a PP nothingburger to borrow a phrase from you righties. A conflict of interest is when YOU benefit from a decision, not when you know the person that wins a bid. About as scandalous as the Mayor's cousin getting the snowplowing contract but not even as valuable. And yes, unless you are extreme right, Trudeau is not a lefty. Any public funds spent outside of the rules and policy is "SOMETHING" becasue it is against the law for one thing. You need to research conflict of interest in regards to Spending public funds, it is against the rules to give family, friends, relatives, co workers, etc contracts of any type for any value. The question here is did the minister direct the purchase to her friend via a order or command, or did the person doing the contract up even know of the relationship between the contractor and minister, if so then it is an honest mistake, it is all about transparency. You know it is bad when even the left does not want you identified as a lefty... How much hate is out there for this one guy... The left created this nightmare, he is one of your yours, like it or not...just open wide and swallow, this is your shiot sandwich to eat. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExFlyer Posted January 1, 2023 Report Share Posted January 1, 2023 58 minutes ago, Army Guy said: It could be a scam...., if the minister instructed the contract go to her friend then it is an illegal purchase regardless if the company could provide the service or goods. "It is called a conflict of interest", and it is written in the policies regarding any government purchasing. When you write your section 32, 33 34 to get purchasing authority it is explained in great detail, another source would be to ask any Base comp controller as i did. It is used to preserve transparency. Or if the purchaser did not know of the relationship between minister and contractor, then it could be conceived as an honest mistake, and further contracts should be null and void. In this case there were 2 contracts, not very good optics. In this case all the details have not been leaked, so hard to tell. If, if, if.... The ethics commissioner did nothing. No ifs The way it works is a requirement is written. Any company that meets the requirements then submits a bid for the product or service. A group of people (none of which work for the office that needs the product or service) then evaluates the bids and, you guessed it, lowest cost compliant wins. Yes, if there is some sort of conflict, it has to be reported. If there does not seem to be a conflict and if the service is deemed innocuous, it can easily be deemed compliant. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExFlyer Posted January 1, 2023 Report Share Posted January 1, 2023 1 hour ago, myata said: Hey Corruption hello! We miss you here... need you, really! Please hurry and don't forget what was that, "Supply Arrangement" will ya 1 hour ago, West said: Only liberals. They seem to be able to say "whoops sorry" and we are all suppose to believe they are gods among us and virtuous therefore can't question them My head hurts. I am overrun buy fools and closed minded simpletons. I am going on a break. Need some sense in my life. Happy New Year to you all, those few intelligent ones, all the fools and simpletons alike. Sort yourselves out. To me and a few others they are easily sorted Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Army Guy Posted January 1, 2023 Report Share Posted January 1, 2023 (edited) 13 minutes ago, ExFlyer said: If, if, if.... The ethics commissioner did nothing. No ifs The way it works is a requirement is written. Any company that meets the requirements then submits a bid for the product or service. A group of people (none of which work for the office that needs the product or service) then evaluates the bids and, you guessed it, lowest cost compliant wins. Yes, if there is some sort of conflict, it has to be reported. If there does not seem to be a conflict and if the service is deemed innocuous, it can easily be deemed compliant. When has the ethic commissionaire did anything of any consequence, other than make some little statement, there has never been any real consequences for any politician. There is always an IF, and these very scenario has played out many times before in almost every government department. and since there is very little info out there as to specifics like anything the liberal government does, it is hard to say for sure what went wrong. This being the government i would not put anything past them. Yes , but a quick phone call from senior management can also influence the purchaser into giving the contract to any number of people or companies. So anything is possible. Edited January 1, 2023 by Army Guy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExFlyer Posted January 1, 2023 Report Share Posted January 1, 2023 24 minutes ago, Army Guy said: When has the ethic commissionaire did anything of any consequence, other than make some little statement, there has never been any real consequences for any politician. There is always an IF, and these very scenario has played out many times before in almost every government department. and since there is very little info out there as to specifics like anything the liberal government does, it is hard to say for sure what went wrong. This being the government i would not put anything past them. Yes , but a quick phone call from senior management can also influence the purchaser into giving the contract to any number of people or companies. So anything is possible. Well, debating the ethics commissioners office can be fruitless. I have given links to their annual reports. Lots of information in there. I have done quite a few (hundreds I could say) Standing Offer and Supply Arrangement contracts in my PWGSC days. I can also say any calls would only be to provide status. The client does not know who is bidding. I, as an evaluator, have recused myself from evaluations because I knew the company or an individual (on a personal side) offering the services but, the client (the one requiring the services) does not see the bids, only the lowest cost compliant bidder. I have had clients come back when the winner was announced and complained they did not want the company or person but, they would have to provide, formally in writing why because the company that would be losing the bid would have to be told why. Now, has there been or can there be anomalies? For sure, no system is fault free or perfect but, it does not happen very often. (in my experience) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
Recommended Posts
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.