Jump to content

Dirty Doug’s Den of Deplorable Developer Deals


Recommended Posts

25 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

 I don't think that sort of socialism is going to fly

governments which try that sort of thing will get hurled out of office

the bulk of the electorate is going to insist on being able to make money by doing business

Whenever anyone wants to put people and public interest ahead of greed and private profits, those who prefer the latterly will use the dreaded “s” word. But most citizens accept that a reasonable level of regulation is necessary.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

Whenever anyone wants to put people and public interest ahead of greed and private profits, those who prefer the latterly will use the dreaded “s” word. But most citizens accept that a reasonable level of regulation is necessary.

again, I don't believe that sort of economic socialism will be tolerated in Ontario

you can get away with Diversity, Equity & Inclusion

but only because that actually enables corporate greed rather than suppresses it

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, eyeball said:

Lumping these together to avoid taking action on transparency is the same thing as arguing against climate change action because it's always happening.

Does the person asking for more welfare transparent to you? Or the person that calls their city councillor for something going on on your street.

Point is lobbying is not public and never will be public. No lumping anything with anything. No matter how little you like it or cry for transparency.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

Does the person asking for more welfare transparent to you? Or the person that calls their city councillor for something going on on your street.

Point is lobbying is not public and never will be public. No lumping anything with anything. No matter how little you like it or cry for transparency.

You honestly believe the billionaires Ford dealt with are on par with someone inquiring about the possibility of installing a few speed bumps for their street?

That's ridiculous and so is the suggestion billionaires should be treated no differently.

You say transparency would defeat the purpose of lobbying.  I think it would enhance it by giving lobbyists the opportunity to gain even more support when presented with a wider audience.

Edited by eyeball
Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, eyeball said:

You honestly believe the billionaires Ford dealt with are on par with someone inquiring about the possibility of installing a few speed bumps for their street?

That's ridiculous and so is the suggestion billionaires should be treated no differently.

You say transparency would defeat the purpose of lobbying.  I think it would enhance it by giving lobbyists the opportunity to gain even more support when presented with a wider audience.

How long do you want this to go on?

Realistically and legally and all that, lobbying is legal, can and will be done behind closed doors, always. My analogy may be one extreme to the other but they are in fact still the same thing. One person wants something from another.

A lobbyist does not want a "wider audience", they want anonymity and to deal with as few people as possible to get what they want. Think about yourself and your daily dealings... you want anyone and everyone to know what you are doing and what you want and what you get? If you say yes, you are lying, even you keep things private.

Thanks for the discussion, when you come to reality, we can discuss other things. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ExFlyer said:

even you keep things private.

Secrecy is the issue here not privacy. And when it comes to the business that impacts the public's domain the public has or should have a right to know, audit, verify and validate their business is being conducted legally and above board. Privacy is for protecting individuals from having things like their medical issues being aired in public. Secrecy is for hiding things from the public.

Privacy and secrecy are not one and the same thing and operating on the basis that they are is wrong.

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

59 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Secrecy is the issue here not privacy. And when it comes to the business that impacts the public's domain the public has or should have a right to know, audit, verify and validate their business is being conducted legally and above board. Privacy is for protecting individuals from having things like their medical issues being aired in public. Secrecy is for hiding things from the public.

Privacy and secrecy are not one and the same thing and operating on the basis that they are is wrong.

Mirriam Webster

Secrecy: the habit or practice of keeping secrets or maintaining privacy or concealment.

Privacy: the quality or state of being apart from company or observation

Same thing... it is no one elses business.

Also, I hope you are not one of those that is  presumptuous enough to think you or the public has the right to know everything??

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ExFlyer said:

How long do you want this to go on?

For as long as you and anyone else equates secrecy with privacy while arguing billionaires should expect the right to both and that politicians are obliged to meet that expectation.

It would be a lot easier not to mention honest if simply argued that corruption is good and then provide reasons why. Others have argued that the wheels of the economy need the grease of corruption and without which the economy simply couldn't function but this never stops them from crying when someone else's party does it.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

Mirriam Webster

Secrecy: the habit or practice of keeping secrets or maintaining privacy or concealment.

Privacy: the quality or state of being apart from company or observation

Same thing... it is no one elses business.

Privacy is consensual where secrecy is not; that is, there is a “right to privacy” but no equivalent “right to secrecy.”

Since we're talking about public policy that regulates lobbying there should be unambiguous definitions for the terms used in the policy. Neither term is defined in a way that conflates then the way you have. In fact secrecy and privacy are not mentioned at all anywhere in the Act. There are other official Acts however that do so perhaps those will have to suffice. The legal definition of secrecy pertains to trade secrets or national security. Privacy is not mentioned at all in this context. Privacy when it's legally defined means that of an individuals personal business, ie medical.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, eyeball said:

For as long as you and anyone else equates secrecy with privacy while arguing billionaires should expect the right to both and that politicians are obliged to meet that expectation.

It would be a lot easier not to mention honest if simply argued that corruption is good and then provide reasons why. Others have argued that the wheels of the economy need the grease of corruption and without which the economy simply couldn't function but this never stops them from crying when someone else's party does it.

 

 

OK.

I hope your paranoia does not filter into all areas of your life.

12 hours ago, eyeball said:

Privacy is consensual where secrecy is not; that is, there is a “right to privacy” but no equivalent “right to secrecy.”

Since we're talking about public policy that regulates lobbying there should be unambiguous definitions for the terms used in the policy. Neither term is defined in a way that conflates then the way you have. In fact secrecy and privacy are not mentioned at all anywhere in the Act. There are other official Acts however that do so perhaps those will have to suffice. The legal definition of secrecy pertains to trade secrets or national security. Privacy is not mentioned at all in this context. Privacy when it's legally defined means that of an individuals personal business, ie medical.

There are no ambiguous definitions.

Get over yourself. You have no right to know what a lobbyist is talking to an official about or if you know what they are talking, you have no right to know the details. Like it or not, the lobby registration legislation and act and format will not ever change to allow you to know details.

Privacy is between the lobbyist and the official and secrecy is what they are talking about.

 

https://www.oico.on.ca/web/default/files/guide-to-the-lobbyists-registration-act.pdf

https://lobbycanada.gc.ca/en/rules/the-lobbying-act/

Edited by ExFlyer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, ExFlyer said:

You have no right to know what a lobbyist is talking to an official about or if you know what they are talking, you have no right to know the details.

That's right, there's nothing that says that can't be changed however.

Quote

Privacy is between the lobbyist and the official and secrecy is what they are talking about.

Whatever you call it, it's responsible for the toxic relationship that exists between us and our government.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, eyeball said:

That's right, there's nothing that says that can't be changed however.

Whatever you call it, it's responsible for the toxic relationship that exists between us and our government.

As I said, you may not like it but, as the old saying goes, it is what it is and both parties seem OK with it.

Whine and complain but, you have no right to know what goes on behind closed doors.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Then why do lobbyists need to disclose what it is they want to discuss behind those closed doors?

I would like to discuss land use.......or, meeting to discuss policy.... or, health issues.

What do you get out of that??  The answer is nothing.

There are many many ways of disguising discussions.

You are being deliberately obtuse. You are just pi$$ed that you cannot find out what goes on behind closed doors. You are like that little old lady on the street that thinks she needs to know everything that goes on. LOL

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

I would like to discuss land use.......or, meeting to discuss policy.... or, health issues.

What do you get out of that??  The answer is nothing.

That's right, we need something more penetrating.

4 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

There are many many ways of disguising discussions.

There are just as many ways of adjusting our protocols surrounding decision making processes. This was something the AG recommended following her investigation of Doug Ford's Greenbelt fiasco.

In my industry you are required to maintain a certain high level of accuracy following the auditing, validating and verification of our records. Fall below it too many times and the protocol changes. We're required to have human observers on board. At our cost, not the public's.

11 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

You are being deliberately obtuse.

You should stop saying it can't be done to someone who's doing it.

12 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

You are just pi$$ed that you cannot find out what goes on behind closed doors.

I'm more pissed at lickspittles who defend keeping those doors closed.

13 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

You are like that little old lady on the street that thinks she needs to know everything that goes on. LOL

You're like someone who has something to hide.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, eyeball said:

That's right, we need something more penetrating.

There are just as many ways of adjusting our protocols surrounding decision making processes. This was something the AG recommended following her investigation of Doug Ford's Greenbelt fiasco.

In my industry you are required to maintain a certain high level of accuracy following the auditing, validating and verification of our records. Fall below it too many times and the protocol changes. We're required to have human observers on board. At our cost, not the public's.

You should stop saying it can't be done to someone who's doing it.

I'm more pissed at lickspittles who defend keeping those doors closed.

You're like someone who has something to hide.

No we don't, it is none of your business what business is doing with government.

Yup by making laws that those involved need and agree to. You desire for whatever it is you need, is not one of them an certainly not in by business

Government is audited all the time by various agencies within and almost all it is in the public view. Who says they are falling behind? Or for what reason?

I never said anything cannot be done. The fact of the matter though is why? Business is happy with status quo and so is government and your desperate need to know is meaningless.

Lickspittles??? LOL

Fact is business lobbying is and will be forever behind closed doors. If your business lobbys clients or customers or dealers (which I am sure they do) and all information is made public, do you really think you would be in business long? If your competitors know what and when you are doing anything and how much you charge, get or spend you will be closed in a minute. Your company has many many secrets.

As a business , there is always something to hide, especially from competitors and often customers and clients.

That's the real world.

Anyway, far off the topic so. You be you and I will be right LOL

 

 

 

Edited by ExFlyer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

If your competitors know what and when you are doing anything and how much you charge, get or spend you will be closed in a minute. Your company has many many secrets.

Yes commercial fishermen lie thru their teeth, especially to one another. That didn't prevent us from developing a monitoring program that protects the public's interest and property, it's fish, while at the same time protecting our rights to our trade secrets.

The whole industry benefits now from the high marks it receives for accountability as determined by several international organizations that are pushing for better fisheries management.

As I said you should stop saying it can't be done to someone who's doing it.

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

2 hours ago, eyeball said:

Yes commercial fishermen lie thru their teeth, especially to one another. That didn't prevent us from developing a monitoring program that protects the public's interest and property, it's fish, while at the same time protecting our rights to our trade secrets.

The whole industry benefits now from the high marks it receives for accountability as determined by several international organizations that are pushing for better fisheries management.

As I said you should stop saying it can't be done to someone who's doing it.

Oh, because the government regulated your catch for years because you nearly fished out the species?

And international as well as domestic organizations monitor your catch? LOL

You are only doing it because your lobbyists could not get a better deal  with governments LOL

I am done. Happy fishing ....if you are in fact fishing. :)

Edited by ExFlyer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

Wait a second. It becomes my business if something illegal is being discussed. 

If something illegal is being discussed, there are systems in place.

I am quite sure you don't lobby for theft or murder LOL

Well, actually, they can discuss anything but, can they get it done?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, ExFlyer said:

Oh, because the government regulated your catch for years because you nearly fished out the species?

No they finally got serious about regulating after it became impossible to avoid the fact that the flip side of overfishing is mismanagement - mismanagement that often happened at the behest of large fishing corporations whose lobbyists worked to have quotas and seasons increased and extended in their favour over others.

As mentioned before billionaire fishermen Jimmy Pattison and Galen Weston's shares of the available catch increased while thousands lost their jobs and local economies were hollowed out.  

Quote

And international as well as domestic organizations monitor your catch? LOL

Stop channeling CdnFox that's not what I said. I said these are pushing for better fisheries management and they give the monitoring program we use high marks. They compare us to other countries they're monitoring.

Quote

You are only doing it because your lobbyists could not get a better deal  with governments LOL

You sure like comparing billionaires to ordinary people to make your case, like everyone is just as prone to venality and can wield the same influence...like little old ladies and a few speed bumps vs Greenbelt billionaires. 

Quote

I am done. Happy fishing ....if you are in fact fishing. :)

On occasion. I'm pretty good at it.  If you know what to look for you can see where the cameras are that monitor us at work.

Loaded (1).jpg

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, eyeball said:

No they finally got serious about regulating after it became impossible to avoid the fact that the flip side of overfishing is mismanagement - mismanagement that often happened at the behest of large fishing corporations whose lobbyists worked to have quotas and seasons increased and extended in their favour over others.

As mentioned before billionaire fishermen Jimmy Pattison and Galen Weston's shares of the available catch increased while thousands lost their jobs and local economies were hollowed out.  

Stop channeling CdnFox that's not what I said. I said these are pushing for better fisheries management and they give the monitoring program we use high marks. They compare us to other countries they're monitoring.

You sure like comparing billionaires to ordinary people to make your case, like everyone is just as prone to venality and can wield the same influence...like little old ladies and a few speed bumps vs Greenbelt billionaires. 

On occasion. I'm pretty good at it.  If you know what to look for you can see where the cameras are that monitor us at work.

Loaded (1).jpg

So, "they" is not you, the fishermen but the government?? They had to stop you because you would not do it yourselves?

Why blame Pattison or Weston when they bought licences that were up for sale to everyone? You sound disgruntled that you did not get more licences. Your fault, not the fault of the guy who bought them.

I only react to what you say.

I don't compare anyone. I just say lobbyist do what they do and if you (and your organization) don't, that is your problem. I did not and do not know who has fishing licenses so throwing that in is a ....red herring LOL

Good at what??? Certainly not good at accepting reality.

Now, get your eyeball back to the topic,  greenbelt....

 

Edited by ExFlyer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, ExFlyer said:

Now, get your eyeball back to the topic,  greenbelt...

Sure, it looks like lots of people in Ontario are quite pissed off at the spectacle of lobbyists getting behind closed doors with a politician to cook up a sweet deal for themselves.

But like you say, they're probably just jealous it wasn't them.

  • Like 1
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
      10,742
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    CrazyCanuck89
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • paradox34 earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • DACHSHUND went up a rank
      Rookie
    • CrazyCanuck89 earned a badge
      First Post
    • aru earned a badge
      First Post
    • CrazyCanuck89 earned a badge
      Conversation Starter
  • Recently Browsing

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