Harper's "new" government corrupt military contracts.

[Argus]

I don't know why I'd even bother.

This thread was just another typical Hiti drive-by smear: he posted this steaming pile of lies without any intention of engaging in discussion or being accountable for these remarks. He emerges from his cave just long enough to post this garbage, then vanishes until his next drive by. It seems to me that this sort of tactic-- posting inflammatory remarks with no intention of participating in a debate-- has been deemed "trolling" in the past, and has been grounds for being banned from this site.

Therefore I'd call on Hiti to either get back here and defend these remarks, or else get off of this message board for good.

-k

I work for a living and don't have time to spend sitting on my butt and educating you as to the difference between ad agencies billing for non-existent work under Liberal and Mulroney governments and this rail carrier hired by the this "new" government billing for items not contained in the original contract.

Yeah, I'm sure you'd be real good at educating her on that subject since you clearly don't understand it yourself. As someone who actually works with contracts in the federal public service, suppose I educate YOU.

Ever have any renovations done to the cardboard box you live in? You know how you only wanted one thing done, but once the work started something else turns up? Contracts are like that. You ask someone to perform a service or provide a good or collection of goods. Then, at some point during the long process, you find that either something happens you didn't foresee, or you forgot to allow for something in the contract. Maybe you didn't think of delivery. Maybe you assumed the sub-contracter who was going to provide some goods would bill you separately. Maybe you didn't allow for the harmonized tax in Newfoundland, or maybe the job turned out bigger than expected and the contractor had to hire more people. It could be large, it could be small. In any event, what you then have to do is amend the original contract to allow for the extra costs involved. This is a completely normal part of doing business in any organization.

We also remember all the Cons screaming at Jane Stewart when her department had "accounting" errors....

Some of that was paperwork errors, but there was a suspiciously high amount of money that wasn't accounted for at all, and of course, the Liberals used Public Works as their major patronage outlet - not that you ever complained at the time, of course - and a lot of very suspicious contracts were let by them for work of little or no value. In addition, there has been no suggestion of political involvement in these contracts, most of which pre-date the current government anyway.

[Nocrap]

I couldn't care whether it's Liberals or Conservatives. Anyone who defends corruption and theft because "it isn't as bas as..." is a pathetic loser and a sad excuse for a Canadian. Remember that next time you are tempted to defend one crook or another because they stole less than...

There is a reason why you don't make a former lobbyist for military contracts your DEFENSE MINISTER and there is a reason why JOHN BAIRD should not be anywhere near our money. Research his history in Ontario where he mishandled, stole and refused to be accountable for 750 million dollars from the provincial coffers. It's a matter of public record and our Provincial Auditor wrote a scathing report on the corruption within his ministry. We can breath a sigh of relief that he was removed from the Treasury Board. If old Sleezie Stevie isn't a crook, he sure likes to surround himself with them. And don't get me started on Jim Flaherty...

[Fat Freddie]

I worked for DND, in NDHQ, in the early 90's and from what I saw, the levels of inability to do most tasks properly were brought on purely by the Liberals implimenting the Forces Reduction Program. More lovenly called the "FRP". This reduction removed experience people that knew the policies. What was left was why I ended up working as a civilian in that department for just over two years. What I saw made me question why the Liberals allowed so many senior NCOs to leave when it was they who knew the policies and how to do the paperwork.

The contracts in question are normally arranged one to two years in advance. They are normally equipment movement. These contracts are started by high ranking officers and handed down to low ranking officers; and by the time we civilian clerks got the paperwork it was a nighmare to search through. We simple tried to ensure the signature blocks were filled in and the cheques were cut and sent with confirmation of services completed, or in process of being completed. At no time did a politician have anything to do with this process.

As a Liberal, I try and be realistic about what I read. I don't like what I'm reading here as it appears to me that trying to lay blame this on a politician is unrealistic. The blame falls on inexperiences officers and over worked civilian clerks like myself who were just trying to keep our heads above water. I now work in a different department and see very little difference in senior leadership. The lack of experience continue to be the major problem. With so many mid level workers retiring now, I only see it getting worse unless the government hires more clerks and gets them experienced before we old folks retire. I have three years left. That's not a lot of time to train my replacement.

[hiti]

We also remember all the Cons screaming at Jane Stewart when her department had "accounting" errors....

Some of that was paperwork errors, but there was a suspiciously high amount of money that wasn't accounted for at all, and of course, the Liberals used Public Works as their major patronage outlet - not that you ever complained at the time, of course - and a lot of very suspicious contracts were let by them for work of little or no value. In addition, there has been no suggestion of political involvement in these contracts, most of which pre-date the current government anyway.

Thanks for the lesson. Maybe now the others will understand that even adscam was not Liberal politicians or the Liberal party filling their pockets. This was individuals within a department skimming, just as this "new" government has found their lobbyist turned Minister has a problem within his military contracts.

What this proves is that politicians are not always qualified to be in charge and senior civil servants or heads of departments should be more responsible for their departments, as Gomery suggested. But I think we'll continue to hear........ the Liberals did it and they are worse than we are.

[Argus]

We also remember all the Cons screaming at Jane Stewart when her department had "accounting" errors....

Some of that was paperwork errors, but there was a suspiciously high amount of money that wasn't accounted for at all, and of course, the Liberals used Public Works as their major patronage outlet - not that you ever complained at the time, of course - and a lot of very suspicious contracts were let by them for work of little or no value. In addition, there has been no suggestion of political involvement in these contracts, most of which pre-date the current government anyway.

Thanks for the lesson. Maybe now the others will understand that even adscam was not Liberal politicians or the Liberal party filling their pockets. This was individuals within a department skimming

Don't be absurd. There is a vast difference between altering and extending a legitimate contract as required

and passing brown paper envelopes filled with money across tables in dark Italian restaurants. Even the Liberal Party has admitted they got kickbacks from unneeded contracts and funneled it into the campaigns of unnamed MPs.

[hiti]

Thanks for the lesson. Maybe now the others will understand that even adscam was not Liberal politicians or the Liberal party filling their pockets. This was individuals within a department skimming

Don't be absurd. There is a vast difference between altering and extending a legitimate contract as required

and passing brown paper envelopes filled with money across tables in dark Italian restaurants. Even the Liberal Party has admitted they got kickbacks from unneeded contracts and funneled it into the campaigns of unnamed MPs.

When did the liberal party admit that? Provide the link.

[kimmy]

I work for a living and don't have time to spend sitting on my butt and educating you as to the difference between ad agencies billing for non-existent work under Liberal and Mulroney governments and this rail carrier hired by the this "new" government billing for items not contained in the original contract.

You still have not provided a single shred of evidence to support your claim that this is "adscam in a different form".

Lots of dodging and misdirection, but you didn't answer the challenge.

We also remember all the Cons screaming at Jane Stewart when her department had "accounting" errors.... amongst the list of Liberals wrongs like patronage, using military jets at $15,000 per hour, and a host of disgusting accusations hurled at Liberals which are the exact things that Steve and his cons indulge in, plus more.

But you didn't compare it to Jane Stewart's HRDC controversy. You compared it to Adscam.

And while you continue to try to promote that comparison by calling it "railscam" neither you still haven't provided any support at all for that ridiculous claim.

By now we all know that Steve is all mouth and no accountability or integrity. As far as it goes..... adscam and railscam sound very much alike.

How? Show me anything in your article that even remotely suggests that there is any connection between

Show me anything in your article that even remotely suggests that the Conservatives have benefited from this.

Show me where your article that claims that money has been stolen at all.

So kimmy.... defend your railscam cons all you want. This "new" government's house of cards is falling because all those words were dishonest.

I want to be very clear about this: I'm not defending the Conservatives, I'm attacking you and your dumb little buddies.

The Conservatives don't need defending in this because there's no suggestion from anybody other than yourself that they've done anything wrong.

-k

[Michael Bluth]

I want to be very clear about this: I'm not defending the Conservatives, I'm attacking you and your dumb little buddies.

The Conservatives don't need defending in this because there's no suggestion from anybody other than yourself that they've done anything wrong.

-k

Brilliant.