Nigel Wright, the person that paid back Mike Duffy's $90,000 expense claim overpayment, has resigned from his position as Chief of Staff to the Prime Minister.
The question will now be how Harper will reward him for this service.
So far, the only comment in the matter from Harper is,
“It is with great regret that I have accepted the resignation of Nigel Wright as my chief of staff. I accept that Nigel believed he was acting in the public interest, but I understand the decision he has taken to resign.
"I want to thank Nigel for his tremendous contribution to our government over the past two and a half years,"
By resigning, Nigel Wright is trying to remove the spotlight from the Senate and the excessive expenses they incur, of which some may have been fraudulent under the (confusing?) guidelines.
There are two aspects to the situation. First, did Mike Duffy submit expense claims that he was not entitled to? He has refused to discuss the situation with the auditors. By repaying the amount in question, he had the audit closed and refused to meet with them or hand over any relevant documents.
But the repayment was actually a gift where the receipt of the gift was not properly registered so as to follow the Conflict of Interest Code that was adopted in May of 2012 and came into force in October 2012. Mike Duffy was appointed in December of 2008 and therefore was part of the Senate when this Code was adopted. It was not part of the thousands of documents that were passed over the last century and gathering dust in the archives. This was a current piece of information that Mike Duffy was part of, if not writing and amending it, voted on whether to adopt it.
From the code:
Prohibition: gifts and other benefits
17. (1) Neither a Senator, nor a family member, shall
accept, directly or indirectly, any gift or other benefit, except
compensation authorized by law, that could reasonably be
considered to relate to the Senator’s position.
Exception
(2) A Senator, and a family member, may, however,
accept gifts or other benefits received as a normal expression
of courtesy or protocol, or within the customary standards
of hospitality that normally accompany the Senator’s
position.
Statement: gift or other benefit
(3) If a gift or other benefit that is accepted under
subsection (2) by a Senator or his or her family members
exceeds $500 in value, or if the total value of all such gifts or
benefits received from one source in a 12-month period
exceeds $500, the Senator shall, within 30 days after the gift
or benefit is received or after that total value is exceeded, as
the case may be, file with the Senate Ethics Officer a
statement disclosing the nature and value of the gifts or other
benefits, their source and the circumstances under which
they were given.
This code was adopted to clarify what the members of the Senate could accept. For people in their situation, it may be common to receive an innocent birthday present of that value. If an uncle wants to pay for their child's university then all the Senator has to do is clearly report the details in a timely manner.
But when a ninety thousand dollar "gift" lands in a Senator's lap, there is the assumption that something is expected in return. Will the recipient have to vote in a certain way in the future? If one of Nigel's corporations will benefit from a bill passing or being squashed in the Senate, will he be able to call up the guy he bailed out and ask to have his back scratched this time? By not reporting it, the possibility appears to be very likely. This is why the code was written and adopted - to remove the appearance of Senators being controlled in exchange for money.
The audit of Mike Duffy's expense claims is being re-opened. There is a high probability that it may have been fraudulent. There has also been a couple of examples where he was reimbursed for expenses during Senate activities and then also reimbursed for the same expenses by the Conservative party account. Mike Duffy refused to hand over the documents to determine where and what he was doing on the dates he submitted Senate expense claims for. Through phone records, it has been determined that he was in Florida during the time that one of the expense claims was asking for the per diem compensation.
If Harper truly believes in transparency, he will also have the Conservative party workers provide the documentation required so the whole issue can be viewed by the independent third party of auditors. Even if it may result in kicking Duffy out of the Senate or into a jail cell.
The question also being asked is "How much will be covered up by Harper and the Conservatives in the attempt to protect their buddies in the Senate?"
sources: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2013/05/19/pol-nigel-wright-resigns.html
http://sen.parl.gc.ca/seo-cse/PDF/CodeOct2012.pdf
Trying to explain the decisions.
Sunday, 19 May 2013
Thursday, 16 May 2013
Investing in Space
Should Canada continue to invest in space travel and research?
It is difficult to see the line up at the food bank or the homeless on the streets and not think we should be putting our money into helping these people here on earth.
But investing in space is a long term project with the return not to be expected for decades. With a maximum mandate of five years, the politicians will not be able to campaign using the benefits of space investment but can point out that their party helped those using food banks and living on the street (or healthcare, education, infrastructure etc.).
Chris Hadfield did an interview on May 16, 2013 that had many interesting points. He spoke of watching the first moon landing at the age of nine and deciding at that point to become an astronaut. One of the steps he took was to qualify for the glider pilot scholarship through the Air Cadets. Continued and expanded support for this program will result in more children becoming like Chris Hadfield.
Some of the quotes from that interview need to be repeated:
"We're also inspiring our youth to do something that barely seems possible."
"My advice: turn yourself into what you want to become step by step as a demonstration of personal will."
"In 2001, ISS was barely functional, only 1 lab, it was just getting going. The reason we put Canadarm2 on was to build ISS."
"We are working hard to make the most out of the taxpayer's dollar and make the ISS a fabric of the lives of Canadians."
"On the ISS, when you have 30 seconds free, you go do something else!"
source: https://www.facebook.com/CanadianSpaceAgency?hc_location=stream
Replay is available on YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P26ZePzI6_Y
Maybe if these quotes were made into posters and sold, there could be enough to continue to fund the space program. Rather than just feeding their stomachs, we should also be feeding their brains, giving children something to dream of becoming, a possible alternative to their current life. When Chris Hadfield decided to become an astronaut, Canada did not have a space program. He is now the "King of Space" (http://www.cbc.ca/news/yourcommunity/2013/05/chris-hadfield-crowned-king-of-space-by-the-internet.html).
Long Live the King and the Space Program!
Discussion on CBC about the Space progam:
http://www.cbc.ca/player/News/Technology%20and%20Science/ID/2385237774/
It is difficult to see the line up at the food bank or the homeless on the streets and not think we should be putting our money into helping these people here on earth.
But investing in space is a long term project with the return not to be expected for decades. With a maximum mandate of five years, the politicians will not be able to campaign using the benefits of space investment but can point out that their party helped those using food banks and living on the street (or healthcare, education, infrastructure etc.).
Chris Hadfield did an interview on May 16, 2013 that had many interesting points. He spoke of watching the first moon landing at the age of nine and deciding at that point to become an astronaut. One of the steps he took was to qualify for the glider pilot scholarship through the Air Cadets. Continued and expanded support for this program will result in more children becoming like Chris Hadfield.
Where my flying career began, 1975 glider pilot scholarship - best wishes to all Cdn Cadets at summer camp! twitter.com/Cmdr_Hadfield/…
— Chris Hadfield (@Cmdr_Hadfield) July 19, 2012
Some of the quotes from that interview need to be repeated:
"We're also inspiring our youth to do something that barely seems possible."
"My advice: turn yourself into what you want to become step by step as a demonstration of personal will."
"In 2001, ISS was barely functional, only 1 lab, it was just getting going. The reason we put Canadarm2 on was to build ISS."
"We are working hard to make the most out of the taxpayer's dollar and make the ISS a fabric of the lives of Canadians."
"On the ISS, when you have 30 seconds free, you go do something else!"
source: https://www.facebook.com/CanadianSpaceAgency?hc_location=stream
Replay is available on YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P26ZePzI6_Y
Maybe if these quotes were made into posters and sold, there could be enough to continue to fund the space program. Rather than just feeding their stomachs, we should also be feeding their brains, giving children something to dream of becoming, a possible alternative to their current life. When Chris Hadfield decided to become an astronaut, Canada did not have a space program. He is now the "King of Space" (http://www.cbc.ca/news/yourcommunity/2013/05/chris-hadfield-crowned-king-of-space-by-the-internet.html).
Long Live the King and the Space Program!
Discussion on CBC about the Space progam:
http://www.cbc.ca/player/News/Technology%20and%20Science/ID/2385237774/
Wednesday, 15 May 2013
Penny Wise or Pound Foolish?
When is it fiscally responsible to deny a citizen medical treatment?
The Manitoba government is trying to save $30,000 by denying a woman surgery to remove the thirty to forty pounds of excess skin she has due to a healthy weight loss program. They are waiting until it becomes cancerous and then they will spend over $100,000 to remove it and further treatment for the complications that will arise. Does this make economic sense to anyone?
I used to think that people who got fat (obese) should have to pay for their decision to eat too much. That was until I was in an emotionally abusive relationship and turned to food for comfort. But I was in that situation for only a few years. I had only a glimpse of what some people spend decades dealing with. With stress hormones and depression complicating the metabolism, becoming obese is not really an easy option to avoid.
I do not want to inventory the abuse this lady went through other than it started before she turned five. Although she was once removed from her mother's care, the authorities were bamboozled into returning her without proper follow up. She was very close to becoming another Pheonix Sinclair. Even her step mother(s) would beat her when she did spend time at her father's house. By the time she was in her twenties, she was convinced nobody would love someone like her and jumped at the first offer of a relationship, even though she knew he was an alcoholic and drug abuser. She was not allowed to buy healthy food because he needed the cash for his drugs.
With her son in tow, she finally broke out of that relationship and, with years of counselling, got her head sorted out. By then she had increased to 390 pounds on a five foot four inch frame. The doctor bluntly told her that she would not see her son graduate from high school or even middle school if she did not do something about her obesity. A gastric bypass was offered (with Manitoba Health offering to pick up the full expense for this plus the skin removal surgery following the weight loss) but with an aunt having had complications, it did not appear to be a good alternative for her. She instead chose to change her lifestyle, eat healthy, and exercise. It has taken over three years (due to a vehicle accident laying her up for a few months) of hard work, but she has lost most of the excess fat that would have caused major health problems (and expense for Manitoba Health).
But the skin did not shrink as fast as the fat disappeared under it. Instead, it has become like a thirty pound water balloon around her torso. She cannot fit into the regular desks at the university where she is attempting to upgrade her education to get a better job. The skin folds collect moisture and cause infections, often requiring prescription medication (paid for by the Manitoba government). Like a water balloon, the skin is getting caught and ripping, causing another opportunity for infection to set in and more expensive medication to be required.
To remove the skin around her torso costs approximately $12,000. To remove the skin from each arm and leg is between $4,000 and $5,000 or about $20,000 for all four areas. She has a hernia that needs to be fixed, but Manitoba Health will not fix it until the excess skin has been removed. It can be done at the same time, but they still will not cover the cost of the hernia surgery if it also involves the removal of the excess skin.
Patient has saved Manitoba Health Care:
Gastric bypass surgery
Future expenses from diabetic complications: $1,000 per month
Without the $30,000 surgery to remove the dead skin, the estimated expenses that will probably occur include:
Medication for skin infections: $2,000 per year
Hernia operation without skin removal, $5,000
High familial occurrence of skin cancer
therefore a very high risk she will also develop skin cancer
in the excess cells around her torso
resulting in surgery to remove infected skin: $50,000
Chemotherapy and other cancer treatments: $25,000
This patient has already saved Manitoba Health most of the cost of the $30,000 surgery to remove the excess skin. Once the skin is removed, she will be able to complete her education, get a good paying job and probably return many times that amount in the form of increased income taxes.
But people in Manitoba Health have their collective blinders on and can only see the $30,000 expense for the surgery today. They think they are being fiscally prudent to save this amount even if it ends up costing the taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars within the next decade.
Should Manitoba Health pay for the reconstructive surgery if a patient has managed to lose over a hundred pounds and keep it off for six months? Or should the citizens be encouraged to remain obese and cause additional expenses to the system?
The Manitoba government is trying to save $30,000 by denying a woman surgery to remove the thirty to forty pounds of excess skin she has due to a healthy weight loss program. They are waiting until it becomes cancerous and then they will spend over $100,000 to remove it and further treatment for the complications that will arise. Does this make economic sense to anyone?
I used to think that people who got fat (obese) should have to pay for their decision to eat too much. That was until I was in an emotionally abusive relationship and turned to food for comfort. But I was in that situation for only a few years. I had only a glimpse of what some people spend decades dealing with. With stress hormones and depression complicating the metabolism, becoming obese is not really an easy option to avoid.
I do not want to inventory the abuse this lady went through other than it started before she turned five. Although she was once removed from her mother's care, the authorities were bamboozled into returning her without proper follow up. She was very close to becoming another Pheonix Sinclair. Even her step mother(s) would beat her when she did spend time at her father's house. By the time she was in her twenties, she was convinced nobody would love someone like her and jumped at the first offer of a relationship, even though she knew he was an alcoholic and drug abuser. She was not allowed to buy healthy food because he needed the cash for his drugs.
With her son in tow, she finally broke out of that relationship and, with years of counselling, got her head sorted out. By then she had increased to 390 pounds on a five foot four inch frame. The doctor bluntly told her that she would not see her son graduate from high school or even middle school if she did not do something about her obesity. A gastric bypass was offered (with Manitoba Health offering to pick up the full expense for this plus the skin removal surgery following the weight loss) but with an aunt having had complications, it did not appear to be a good alternative for her. She instead chose to change her lifestyle, eat healthy, and exercise. It has taken over three years (due to a vehicle accident laying her up for a few months) of hard work, but she has lost most of the excess fat that would have caused major health problems (and expense for Manitoba Health).
But the skin did not shrink as fast as the fat disappeared under it. Instead, it has become like a thirty pound water balloon around her torso. She cannot fit into the regular desks at the university where she is attempting to upgrade her education to get a better job. The skin folds collect moisture and cause infections, often requiring prescription medication (paid for by the Manitoba government). Like a water balloon, the skin is getting caught and ripping, causing another opportunity for infection to set in and more expensive medication to be required.
To remove the skin around her torso costs approximately $12,000. To remove the skin from each arm and leg is between $4,000 and $5,000 or about $20,000 for all four areas. She has a hernia that needs to be fixed, but Manitoba Health will not fix it until the excess skin has been removed. It can be done at the same time, but they still will not cover the cost of the hernia surgery if it also involves the removal of the excess skin.
Patient has saved Manitoba Health Care:
Gastric bypass surgery
Future expenses from diabetic complications: $1,000 per month
Without the $30,000 surgery to remove the dead skin, the estimated expenses that will probably occur include:
Medication for skin infections: $2,000 per year
Hernia operation without skin removal, $5,000
High familial occurrence of skin cancer
therefore a very high risk she will also develop skin cancer
in the excess cells around her torso
resulting in surgery to remove infected skin: $50,000
Chemotherapy and other cancer treatments: $25,000
This patient has already saved Manitoba Health most of the cost of the $30,000 surgery to remove the excess skin. Once the skin is removed, she will be able to complete her education, get a good paying job and probably return many times that amount in the form of increased income taxes.
But people in Manitoba Health have their collective blinders on and can only see the $30,000 expense for the surgery today. They think they are being fiscally prudent to save this amount even if it ends up costing the taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars within the next decade.
Should Manitoba Health pay for the reconstructive surgery if a patient has managed to lose over a hundred pounds and keep it off for six months? Or should the citizens be encouraged to remain obese and cause additional expenses to the system?
Plain Language or Dumbing Down
On May 11, 2013, The Calgary Herald reported that the city council has embraced a plain-language policy. Is it dumbing down or removing pretentious words that do not add to the meaning?
The primary reason for communication is clarity. If there are too many words that the average person does not understand in the message, then it is useless. The larger the word, the greater the risk of misinterpretation. There are often many definitions for that large word so selecting the smaller word from the list of definitions will remove any possibility of which one the reader should select.
For example, “The role of the Implementation Teams will be to focus on the transformational actions within their sphere . . . The CPRI supports the social objectives of the TBL.”
Can anyone tell me what you think this says?
It is a typical clause from the Calgary bureaucracy. This example is from a report about dealing with poverty issues. Most of the citizens that it would involve have a reading level of grade five to grade seven.
Rewriting "transformational actions" to "changes" makes it far clearer and less intimidating to those that are involved.
Sentences with upwards of twenty words are begging for confusion. Breaking them into shorter, clearer phrases will result in better comprehension for everyone.
The documents they are adjusting were designed to help the citizens and not be a vocabulary lesson. If too many become confused then the purpose for publishing has not been met. Having to admit that they do not understand it can crush their self esteem, often at a time when they need it to be built up.
The alphabet soup should also be clarified. If the name of an organization is too long then maybe the name should be shortened with the pretentious words removed or replaced with common ones that can be understood by everyone.
source: http://www.calgaryherald.com/business/energy-resources/Council+bureaucratic+bafflegab+embracing+plain+language/8369591/story.html
The primary reason for communication is clarity. If there are too many words that the average person does not understand in the message, then it is useless. The larger the word, the greater the risk of misinterpretation. There are often many definitions for that large word so selecting the smaller word from the list of definitions will remove any possibility of which one the reader should select.
For example, “The role of the Implementation Teams will be to focus on the transformational actions within their sphere . . . The CPRI supports the social objectives of the TBL.”
Can anyone tell me what you think this says?
It is a typical clause from the Calgary bureaucracy. This example is from a report about dealing with poverty issues. Most of the citizens that it would involve have a reading level of grade five to grade seven.
Rewriting "transformational actions" to "changes" makes it far clearer and less intimidating to those that are involved.
Sentences with upwards of twenty words are begging for confusion. Breaking them into shorter, clearer phrases will result in better comprehension for everyone.
The documents they are adjusting were designed to help the citizens and not be a vocabulary lesson. If too many become confused then the purpose for publishing has not been met. Having to admit that they do not understand it can crush their self esteem, often at a time when they need it to be built up.
The alphabet soup should also be clarified. If the name of an organization is too long then maybe the name should be shortened with the pretentious words removed or replaced with common ones that can be understood by everyone.
source: http://www.calgaryherald.com/business/energy-resources/Council+bureaucratic+bafflegab+embracing+plain+language/8369591/story.html
Riverbank Discovery Centre
River Repairs
River Repairs
The
situation is that the flood of 2011 did extensive damage to the
riverbank and the options are to either spend $1.5 million to repair the
riverbank (as reported in the Brandon Sun on 8 May 2013) or "keep it
natural" and move the building (as suggested by members on the
eBrandon.ca forum: http://ebrandon.ca).
Now I am not an engineer, but I believe that it would cost far more to move the building and walking paths than to repair the river bank to stop the erosion. This figure is not available, but it is quite possible that the intelligent people at Ducks Unlimited and the Riverbank Discovery Centre have priced this out and found it to be an unacceptable alternative.
It has been the process of removing marshes up stream (they acted like a sponge to reduce the flow of water in the spring) that was a major contributor to the 2011 flood so saying we are not allowed to "modify nature" to repair the damage done by other modifications is pure hypocrisy.
There have been river modifications to build the bridge a few meters away so it has already lost the "natural" aspect of the scene. Using rocks to repair and prevent further erosion would be an education feature in the studies available at the centre. Most of the rivers in Europe have been modified in some way to accommodate the civilizations that line their banks.
The decision to build it in the current location included the highest flood level for over a hundred years and that 2011 was a rare occurrence, surpassing over three hundred years of record keeping. With proper management of the water upstream (which was not done in 2011), the probability of reaching 1,184 feet above sea level has become negligible. There has already been a major investment in preventing a reoccurrence so the rest of the river should not panic with fear that 2011 will happen again.
But where to get the $1.5 million for the repairs now becomes the big question. A common management lesson is to not bring a problem to supervisors without also bringing a possible solution.
I would like to recommend letting donors "Buy a Rock" (where size matters). A boulder half a metre in diameter could cost the donor $1,000 (with a tax receipt issued), but the child could buy a palm sized one for a loonie. I would like to put my tongue in my cheek and suggest there are a few people that could contribute the rocks in their head for free. (Removing tongue and back to the topic.)
Once the rocks are purchased, the labour to get them into place is just down the road. During the flood, some of the residents in the Brandon Corrections Centre demonstrated excellent community service on the dykes and in other places where brawn was desperately needed. Many received business cards with pleas to contact the business owner because they had shown their leadership and work ethic that the business needed. I regularly dropped off snacks on my way home because they were working to protect my home in the old part of Kirkcaldy. They appeared happy to be doing something constructive rather than counting the hours in their (overcrowded) cells.
There are also programs to hire the under thirty who need experience. Is there an environmental science or engineering student at BU, U of Manitoba, U of Regina, U of Winnipeg, etc. that could use this as part of their studies or even their graduate thesis?
By thinking outside of the box rather than going into panic mode, Brandon can retain a beautiful and educational asset, give people who want to reform an opportunity to redeem themselves, and let a student receive a life changing experience. If those that favour this idea could donate what they can afford for a stone or two, the repair could be done with minimal government cheque writing so that it becomes a feather in the cap of the citizens rather than a photo op with ugly signs and Harpers's profile (or was that supposed to be signs and Harper's ugly profile).
Comment if you have anything to add to this discussion.
Now I am not an engineer, but I believe that it would cost far more to move the building and walking paths than to repair the river bank to stop the erosion. This figure is not available, but it is quite possible that the intelligent people at Ducks Unlimited and the Riverbank Discovery Centre have priced this out and found it to be an unacceptable alternative.
It has been the process of removing marshes up stream (they acted like a sponge to reduce the flow of water in the spring) that was a major contributor to the 2011 flood so saying we are not allowed to "modify nature" to repair the damage done by other modifications is pure hypocrisy.
There have been river modifications to build the bridge a few meters away so it has already lost the "natural" aspect of the scene. Using rocks to repair and prevent further erosion would be an education feature in the studies available at the centre. Most of the rivers in Europe have been modified in some way to accommodate the civilizations that line their banks.
The decision to build it in the current location included the highest flood level for over a hundred years and that 2011 was a rare occurrence, surpassing over three hundred years of record keeping. With proper management of the water upstream (which was not done in 2011), the probability of reaching 1,184 feet above sea level has become negligible. There has already been a major investment in preventing a reoccurrence so the rest of the river should not panic with fear that 2011 will happen again.
But where to get the $1.5 million for the repairs now becomes the big question. A common management lesson is to not bring a problem to supervisors without also bringing a possible solution.
I would like to recommend letting donors "Buy a Rock" (where size matters). A boulder half a metre in diameter could cost the donor $1,000 (with a tax receipt issued), but the child could buy a palm sized one for a loonie. I would like to put my tongue in my cheek and suggest there are a few people that could contribute the rocks in their head for free. (Removing tongue and back to the topic.)
Once the rocks are purchased, the labour to get them into place is just down the road. During the flood, some of the residents in the Brandon Corrections Centre demonstrated excellent community service on the dykes and in other places where brawn was desperately needed. Many received business cards with pleas to contact the business owner because they had shown their leadership and work ethic that the business needed. I regularly dropped off snacks on my way home because they were working to protect my home in the old part of Kirkcaldy. They appeared happy to be doing something constructive rather than counting the hours in their (overcrowded) cells.
There are also programs to hire the under thirty who need experience. Is there an environmental science or engineering student at BU, U of Manitoba, U of Regina, U of Winnipeg, etc. that could use this as part of their studies or even their graduate thesis?
By thinking outside of the box rather than going into panic mode, Brandon can retain a beautiful and educational asset, give people who want to reform an opportunity to redeem themselves, and let a student receive a life changing experience. If those that favour this idea could donate what they can afford for a stone or two, the repair could be done with minimal government cheque writing so that it becomes a feather in the cap of the citizens rather than a photo op with ugly signs and Harpers's profile (or was that supposed to be signs and Harper's ugly profile).
Comment if you have anything to add to this discussion.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)