Support NeoGAF

[Fuzzy]

Am I wrong when I think it's stupid that we spent over a million dollars to find out that Shared Services Canada is an inefficient program, when I'm sure they could have just asked employees themselves and gotten the same results for "free"?

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/sha...ants-email-brison-harper-management-1.4143071

No, I prefer facts over feelings.

 

[firehawk12]

No, I prefer facts over feelings.

Don't public servants have the same reporting processes found in private companies? If your boss is an idiot or you're being asked to do something that is wrong, you just do it and not mention it to anyone up the chain?

 

[Silexx]

When did the Liberals become a left-wing socialist party???

Their hope is to siphon off enough NDP support to offset the ton of votes they are going to lose to the PCs in the next election.

 

[firehawk12]

Their hope is to siphon off enough NDP support to offset the ton of votes they are going to lose to the PCs in the next election.

Sure. It was more rhetorical. lol
Besides, I bet they reneg on all these promises if they win, so it probably doesn't matter either way.

 

[Silexx]

Sure. It was more rhetorical. lol
Besides, I bet they reneg on all these promises if they win, so it probably doesn't matter either way.

No doubt.

 

[Fuzzy]

Don't public servants have the same reporting processes found in private companies? If your boss is an idiot or you're being asked to do something that is wrong, you just do it and not mention it to anyone up the chain?

But this report was ordered exactly because employees reported problems. The Government wanted to know what is going on and ways to fix it. Besides, being bothered that the Government pays (relatively little) for a study so we have more information is silly.

 

[firehawk12]

But this report was ordered exactly because employees reported problems. The Government wanted to know what is going on and ways to fix it. Besides, being bothered that the Government pays (relatively little) for a study so we have more information is silly.

Maybe I've been watching too much Silicon Valley, but it just sounded like one of those "find ways to waste money" schemes that you'd see the characters get involved with.

 

[CazTGG]

Does it really though? I mean, how often have you heard aspects of this speech read before from various governments with it only amounting to maybe some new parts for a plane

The speech is largely a refute of adopting a "Canada First" policy and the United States recent actions, acknowledging that they can no longer rely as they once did on the United States for, among other things, military defense while increasing its role on the national stage through operations like their plan to improve international access to abortion.

Their hope is to siphon off enough NDP support to offset the ton of votes they are going to lose to the PCs in the next election.

At least until the PCs shoot themselves in the foot (again).

 

[gutter_trash]

What are people's thoughts on Freelands speech? Sounds like we're gearing for new military investment with talk of hard power and such.

http://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/politics/freeland-foreign-policy-speech-1.4147672

Canada isn't even at 1% GDP on military spending, you got poorer countries busting that

 

[Infinite Stars]

Canada isn't even at 1% GDP on military spending, you got poorer countries busting that

To be fair, I'd like to Imagine the election of Cheeto Benito in America might spur our defense spending. He's openly threatened trade war with Canada and a lot of allies are beginning to realize how they can't rely on the US being stable right now. Obviously we don't need a top tier army, but I could see a move towards the Swiss/Israeli "Mandatory Military/Peacekeeping Service for X years" in exchange for College/University/Trades Training Free of charge for some years.

 

[Sean C]

Obviously we don't need a top tier army, but I could see a move towards the Swiss/Israeli "Mandatory Military/Peacekeeping Service for X years" in exchange for College/University/Trades Training Free of charge for some years.

I don't know that the army needs to be much larger than it presently is.

The major issue facing the Forces continue to be equipment-related. The Navy, especially, has had a catastrophic decline in its operational capacity as its destroyers and supply ships dropped out of service. And this is one area where a decade of Conservative government might have done some good, but Harper couldn't even manage that.

 

[firehawk12]

I don't know that the army needs to be much larger than it presently is.

The major issue facing the Forces continue to be equipment-related. The Navy, especially, has had a catastrophic decline in its operational capacity as its destroyers and supply ships dropped out of service. And this is one area where a decade of Conservative government might have done some good, but Harper couldn't even manage that.

We spent more money on hiring ship designers to draw up blueprints than we did on building ships. lol

 

[Sibylus]

What are people's thoughts on Freelands speech? Sounds like we're gearing for new military investment with talk of hard power and such.

http://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/politics/freeland-foreign-policy-speech-1.4147672

She's right. The post-1945 balance of power is crumbling before our eyes, and it would be irresponsible to continue as though it's not. 45 is destroying the work of the better part of 70 years.

 

[Infinite Stars]

I don't know that the army needs to be much larger than it presently is.

The major issue facing the Forces continue to be equipment-related. The Navy, especially, has had a catastrophic decline in its operational capacity as its destroyers and supply ships dropped out of service. And this is one area where a decade of Conservative government might have done some good, but Harper couldn't even manage that.

I'm not advocating for this major uptick in armed forces. I just think that for a nation with ~40 Million we could use a bigger military especially as our closest ally is fucking everything up.

Otherwise, yeah, I can see the point wrt equipment. The F35 Debacle was such a shit show

 

[Jazz573]

Radio-Canada is offering some sort of political and moral compass on their website. It's pretty detailed. You can compare your answers to previous generations (from Millenials to the Silent Generation).

It thinks I'm 41 and Gen X. I'm 23. lol

 

[Moppeh]

I got 49 and I'm 22.

 

[CazTGG]

It thinks I'm 41 and Gen X. I'm 23. lol

Why Are Millennials Stealing Gen X's Spotlight?

 

[Mr.Mike]

Updates to Canada’s criminal law will legalize duels and permit pretending to practise witchcraft

Canada’s wildly out-of-date Criminal Code will finally get renovations in the near future, thanks to legislation tabled on Tuesday.

Many sections of Canada’s criminal law go back more than a century, and reading through the 1,200-plus pages of the code makes that pretty obvious.

...

It’s those sections that have been the target for Justice Minister Jody Wilson-Raybould, who is planning on repealing those anachronistic laws through bill C-51 (not to be confused with the previous government’s anti-terrorism legislation.)

C-51 will remove criminal prohibitions on:

• Duels
• Offering a reward for stolen or lost property, “no questions asked”
• Blasphemous libel, whereby someone mocks or slanders religion
• Pretending to practise witchcraft
• Issuing trading stamps
• Impersonating someone who is taking an exam
• Falsely claiming a royal warrant (a permit allowing someone to advertise that they have permission from the monarchy to produce a good)

The majority of these laws are no longer in effect — either due to their oddly specific nature, or because the Supreme Court has declared them unconstitutional — and many are holdovers from a colonial legal era.

...

Which is a fun headline, but also the laws around rape are being improved.

There’s also situations where the Criminal Code hasn’t been updated to add clarity that was provided by the Supreme Court.

Courts have struggled to determine where to draw the line when it comes to intoxication and consent in recent years. To that end, Wilson-Raybould’s legislation will “clarify that an unconscious person is incapable of consenting,” according to a government backgrounder.

The law will also expand Canada’s rape shield laws — rules that limit how lawyers can cross-examine sexual assault survivors about their past sexual history — to clarify that one can have legal representation during those proceedings, and that evidence of a person’s past sexual communications can’t be used to infer consent.

A prime example of that situation occurred in the prosecution of radio personality Jian Ghomeshi, where messages from the the women, who were alleging sexual assault, were entered into evidence to undercut their allegations.

Also new requirements for introducing legislation.

Perhaps the most momentous thing to happen in this legislation, however, is a new requirement that will force the minister of justice — and all future occupants of that job — to introduce a report alongside every piece of government legislation, explaining its possible implications on Canadians’ constitutional rights.

The Canadian government, for decades, has been accused of introducing legislation that will likely be declared unconstitutional by the courts.

 

[Morrigan Stark]

Anyone got Barry's speech on video somewhere?

 

[Pedrito]

Oh, blasphemous libel is a goner. What will the "mah free speech" crowd will cling to now?

 

[CazTGG]

Edit: Never mind.

 

[yanipheonu]

C-51 will remove criminal prohibitions on:
Duels
Pretending to practise witchcraft

Thank god, my wizard duels can finally go unhindered.

 

[CazTGG]

Thank god, my wizard duels can finally go unhindered.

This is the future liberals want.

 

[gabbo]

This is the future liberals want.

Not-Vencent Price has to up his game. Unless this is meant to be a metaphor, in which case, Price is Trudeau

 

[CazTGG]

Not-Vencent Price has to up his game. Unless this is meant to be a metaphor, in which case, Price is Trudeau

Price eventually wins the duel against Boris Karloff, so...

 

[Simon Belmont]

Price eventually wins the duel against Boris Karloff, so...

I can't hear the name Boris Karloff without thinking of the movie Ed Wood.

 

[explodet]

Thank god, my wizard duels can finally go unhindered.

Sounds good. Meet you in Chinatown, I'll bring the beer!

 

[Sean C]

Updates to Canada’s criminal law will legalize duels and permit pretending to practise witchcraft

As long as Section 49 (alarming Her Majesty) is still in force, I'm good.

 

[Simon Belmont]

As long as Section 49 (alarming Her Majesty) is still in force, I'm good.

49 b is actually pretty reasonable, but if 49 a is still in there you have to think there would have been a meeting about that. To be a fly on that wall.

 

[Earthstrike]

Maybe I've been watching too much Silicon Valley, but it just sounded like one of those "find ways to waste money" schemes that you'd see the characters get involved with.

No, the problems with shared services canada have come up before, with the head of statistics canada complaining about the program.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/statscan-wayne-smith-resigns-1.3765765

I work in I.T. This isn't a simple matter of "How much does each employee get paid?"

Basically every I.T. department has some infrastructure they manage by creating teams of personnel to manage their I.T. equipment.

Depending on what the institution does, effects the structure of the I.T. department then. A record keeping department might have heavy server maintenance requirements, an analysis firm might have to keep computers up and running with a strong service desk, and so forth.

Consolidation of all these firms basically initiates a process, where all these different departments, with different needs, have to figure out the best way to do things, such that applying that way to all departments works, but now consolidates and saves on management costs.

Reading the consultant's report which states "This is the equivalent of merging the infrastructure of 30-40 banks" tells me this shared services canada program needs to be axed pretty much immediately.

 

[Earthstrike]

She's right. The post-1945 balance of power is crumbling before our eyes, and it would be irresponsible to continue as though it's not. 45 is destroying the work of the better part of 70 years.

Trump could be a one-off. I would much prefer a wait and see approach. The republican instiution will figure out a way to insulate themselves from another Trump if they lose 2018 and 2020. They do everything they can to win. If they see trump-esque candidates as toxic, you can bet your ass they'll figure out ways to filter undesirables out of primaries.

 

[djkimothy]

No, the problems with shared services canada have come up before, with the head of statistics canada complaining about the program.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/statscan-wayne-smith-resigns-1.3765765

I work in I.T. This isn't a simple matter of "How much does each employee get paid?"

Basically every I.T. department has some infrastructure they manage by creating teams of personnel to manage their I.T. equipment.

Depending on what the institution does, effects the structure of the I.T. department then. A record keeping department might have heavy server maintenance requirements, an analysis firm might have to keep computers up and running with a strong service desk, and so forth.

Consolidation of all these firms basically initiates a process, where all these different departments, with different needs, have to figure out the best way to do things, such that applying that way to all departments works, but now consolidates and saves on management costs.

Reading the consultant's report which states "This is the equivalent of merging the infrastructure of 30-40 banks" tells me this shared services canada program needs to be axed pretty much immediately.

Between phoenix system and shared services there is nothing good that the conservatives have implemented in the previous term.

 

[Leeness]

As long as Section 49 (alarming Her Majesty) is still in force, I'm good.

"Prohibited Acts
Acts intended to alarm Her Majesty or break public peace

49 Every one who wilfully, in the presence of Her Majesty,

(a) does an act with intent to alarm Her Majesty or to break the public peace, or
(b) does an act that is intended or is likely to cause bodily harm to Her Majesty,

is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years."

😂😂😂 I hadn't seen this one before.

Also, Trubama bromance back on, they got dinner tonight. 👏

 

[gutter_trash]

Defense Minister Sajjan is live.

Will increase military spending by 70% in s 10 year period, expects to reach 2% GDP then / $32.7B per year

 

[Mr.Mike]

We will improve our military in the areas of space and the cyberdomain of cyberspace. The Canadian Forces are establishing a cyber operator position for cyber operations. New cyber support program. Cyber Cyber Cyber.

EDIT:

 

[KernelPanic]

Trump could be a one-off. I would much prefer a wait and see approach. The republican instiution will figure out a way to insulate themselves from another Trump if they lose 2018 and 2020. They do everything they can to win. If they see trump-esque candidates as toxic, you can bet your ass they'll figure out ways to filter undesirables out of primaries.

Or they might just find a Trump like candidate who isn't that incompetent and doesn't Tweet in his spare time.

 

[Infinite Stars]

Defense Minister Sajjan is live.

Will increase military spending by 70% in s 10 year period, expects to reach 2% GDP then / $32.7B per year

We will improve our military in the areas of space and the cyberdomain of cyberspace. The Canadian Forces are establishing a cyber operator position for cyber operations. New cyber support program. Cyber Cyber Cyber.

EDIT:

Thank God. I'm not a warhawk, but this is much needed improvement, especially given the actions of our southern neighbor.

 

[CazTGG]

Trump could be a one-off. I would much prefer a wait and see approach. The republican instiution will figure out a way to insulate themselves from another Trump if they lose 2018 and 2020. They do everything they can to win. If they see trump-esque candidates as toxic, you can bet your ass they'll figure out ways to filter undesirables out of primaries.

Given the GOP's candidate for Hawaii, among others like Mr. Red Pill last year...i'm skeptical they'll try to rehabilitate their image, to say the least. They may do anything to win but showing a spine doesn't seem to be one of them, and i'm not just talking about the indefensible amount of defense they made for Trump's actions i.e. gerrymandering, general obstruction during Obama's 8 years that left hundreds of positions unfilled, including courts, etc. When given the option, they will choose the one that benefits their party rather than their people.

 

[matthewwhatever]

Thank God. I'm not a warhawk, but this is much needed improvement, especially given the actions of our southern neighbor.

Even without how the US has been acting lately, I think our military needed some investments. Things like the Coast Guard and Search & Rescue fall under the auspices of military funding, and in a country like Canada, those things are essential services. You can be in favour of greater military funding without being a hawk.

Also new requirements for introducing legislation.

If I'm not mistaken, every piece of legislation already required that the Justice Minister tell cabinet whether it passed Charter muster. They just didn't have to make it public. I'd be surprised if this makes any substantive difference, since no government would introduce legislation with a report that says it wouldn't survive a Charter challenge. Obviously, some legislation doesn't meet that standard -- see much of the Harper years -- but even still, no one is going to outline why they're introducing unconstitutional laws.

 

[Boogie]

As long as Section 49 (alarming Her Majesty) is still in force, I'm good.

Beat me to it. My favorite offence in the Code.

 

[homeworkfilms]

Was this massive increase in defense spending part of the liberal platform? I can't find evidence that it was. If not is such a large spend on something like the military at this point in this governments lifespan seen as acceptable or is that something that could be seen as outside the framework of what was promised with a liberal government?

 

[firehawk12]

Was this massive increase in defense spending part of the liberal platform? I can't find evidence that it was. If not is such a large spend on something like the military at this point in this governments lifespan seen as acceptable or is that something that could be seen as outside the framework of what was promised with a liberal government?

I mean, platforms are just promises. It's up to voters to vote for someone else if the party in power starts doing things that you don't agree with.
Too bad your only real choice is another party full of hawks, so... if defense spending is an issue for you, oh well.

 

[Layell]

Was this massive increase in defense spending part of the liberal platform? I can't find evidence that it was. If not is such a large spend on something like the military at this point in this governments lifespan seen as acceptable or is that something that could be seen as outside the framework of what was promised with a liberal government?

In June 2006 all NATO governments agreed to a 2% GDP commitment to military spending, this was under Harper. It was ratified again in 2014. To be fair most of the NATO members do not hit this target and US is almost double it. I have no issue personally with this commitment as NATO is a rather important part of peacekeeping and defense. Canada has never hit the target, and if Trudeau is willing to do it in the face of US cutting down on NATO then it's necessary.

As has been said already, the how the spending is done can be quite different from bombing jets to necessary services/modernization.

 

[gutter_trash]

In June 2006 all NATO governments agreed to a 2% GDP commitment to military spending, this was under Harper. It was ratified again in 2014. To be fair most of the NATO members do not hit this target and US is almost double it. I have no issue personally with this commitment as NATO is a rather important part of peacekeeping and defense. Canada has never hit the target, and if Trudeau is willing to do it in the face of US cutting down on NATO then it's necessary.

As has been said already, the how the spending is done can be quite different from bombing jets to necessary services/modernization.

to be fair, Canada is dead lost and isn't a poor country

 

[Blue Submarine No. 6]

No, the problems with shared services canada have come up before, with the head of statistics canada complaining about the program.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/statscan-wayne-smith-resigns-1.3765765

I work in I.T. This isn't a simple matter of "How much does each employee get paid?"

Basically every I.T. department has some infrastructure they manage by creating teams of personnel to manage their I.T. equipment.

Depending on what the institution does, effects the structure of the I.T. department then. A record keeping department might have heavy server maintenance requirements, an analysis firm might have to keep computers up and running with a strong service desk, and so forth.

Consolidation of all these firms basically initiates a process, where all these different departments, with different needs, have to figure out the best way to do things, such that applying that way to all departments works, but now consolidates and saves on management costs.

Reading the consultant's report which states "This is the equivalent of merging the infrastructure of 30-40 banks" tells me this shared services canada program needs to be axed pretty much immediately.

It was never going to work - not on the scale they wanted it to be on and certainly not at the speed they were selling to the public - and we all knew it... Everyone in Public Sector IT knew it was a fucking horrible idea as it was presented by the Conservative government of the day, but a few bureaucrats supported by a handful of industry big guns with $$ in their eyes pushed it through...

but right from the start it was a clusterfuck...

Like, you're going to start a new department, so you decide to appropriate staff and funding from the existing departments to staff it up...

Now, if I'm a manager of IT at Environment Canada, and I've been told that I have to send 25% (or more) of my staff to SSC, along with their funding, to work this new centralized IT pool, which 25% of my staff are likely to get shipped out, do you suppose? The very best IT guys I've got? or the problem cases, irritants and do nothings that have been plaguing my organization for years and that I'm eager to get rid of?

I know people who work or have worked at SSC, and word is that it's largely a crippled work environment and morale is just about zero...

 

[CazTGG]

So...Kevin O'Leary is in a bit of trouble with Elections Canada with regards to the massive debt he racked up: http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/conservative-leadership-oleary-campaign-debt-1.4150293

The Canada Elections Act says an individual candidate can't donate more than $25,000 in contributions, loans and loan guarantees to his or her campaign. The limits are there to keep wealthy candidates from having an unfair advantage.

But O'Leary wanted the commissioner to let him bend — perhaps even break— the rules.

The law firm that represents O'Leary Productions made its pitch to the Commissioner of Canada Elections in a letter dated May 23. That's four days after CBC News first reported that O'Leary's campaign was in debt, and that some campaign contractors were complaining about unpaid bills...

O'Leary must now repay his leadership debt by soliciting individual Canadians to donate a maximum of $1,550 each until he has enough to cover his outstanding costs

 

[firehawk12]

It was never going to work - not on the scale they wanted it to be on and certainly not at the speed they were selling to the public - and we all knew it... Everyone in Public Sector IT knew it was a fucking horrible idea as it was presented by the Conservative government of the day, but a few bureaucrats supported by a handful of industry big guns with $$ in their eyes pushed it through...

but right from the start it was a clusterfuck...

Like, you're going to start a new department, so you decide to appropriate staff and funding from the existing departments to staff it up...

Now, if I'm a manager of IT at Environment Canada, and I've been told that I have to send 25% (or more) of my staff to SSC, along with their funding, to work this new centralized IT pool, which 25% of my staff are likely to get shipped out, do you suppose? The very best IT guys I've got? or the problem cases, irritants and do nothings that have been plaguing my organization for years and that I'm eager to get rid of?

I know people who work or have worked at SSC, and word is that it's largely a crippled work environment and morale is just about zero...

This would be funny if it wasn't real life and our tax dollars at work.

So...Kevin O'Leary is in a bit of trouble with Elections Canada with regards to the massive debt he racked up: http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/cons...debt-1.4150293

Can his campaign just declare bankruptcy? Or he just pays the contractors privately I suppose. I don't think he cares at this point, because it's not like he has a political career to worry about anymore.

 

[Mr.Mike]

The law firm's letter asks that the production company be permitted to loan O'Leary's campaign $300,000 "to facilitate the payment of small vendors who may face financial hardship as a result of having their accounts to the campaign go unpaid for a prolonged period of time."

While the letter refers three times to the potential suffering of small vendors, it also notes that if O'Leary Productions can't loan the campaign the money, O'Leary himself could be squeezed by potential legal action.

"The litigation could very well result in Mr. O'Leary being required to pay these accounts directly if he is found to be personally liable for them," the letter reads.

It also calls the proposed loan "an option of last resort" and notes that "attempts to secure loans from banks have been unsuccessful."

O'Leary told CBC News his pitch was rejected.

"They said no. I think a candidate should be personally liable for any debts not cleared after the race is over and the outcome has been determined. This law seems unfair to smaller vendors that service the political process in Canada that get hung out to dry waiting while the candidates try to raise dollars for a race that is already over," he said.

O'Leary must now repay his leadership debt by soliciting individual Canadians to donate a maximum of $1,550 each until he has enough to cover his outstanding costs.

Wait, so is he not allowed to pay the debts personally unless it's determined he is personally legally liable?

Or does he just not want to directly pay it personally because then he'd have to pull the money from a corporation and be taxed on it in the process?

 

[Mr.Mike]

Senators debate removing infrastructure bank from budget bill

A Senate report concludes the government hasn't done enough to protect the proposed Canada Infrastructure Bank from political interference and a motion is in the works to remove the bank from Finance Minister Bill Morneau's budget bill.

Senators are debating whether to amend or even remove the budget bill's provisions that would create a $35-billion federal bank designed to attract private investment in infrastructure. In a new development, Senators are also expressing concern with another federal corporation that would be created in the budget bill: a $218-million entity called the Invest in Canada Hub.

The House of Commons is scheduled to approve C-44, the budget bill, this week. The Senate will begin its official study of the legislation on Tuesday, though Senate committees have already held "prestudy" meetings on the bill. Independent Senator André Pratte told The Globe and Mail that he will be moving a motion Tuesday to split the bill so that the infrastructure provisions are removed for further study in the fall.

 

[CazTGG]

This would be funny if it wasn't real life and our tax dollars at work.


Can his campaign just declare bankruptcy? Or he just pays the contractors privately I suppose. I don't think he cares at this point, because it's not like he has a political career to worry about anymore.

He does have a reputation to sink and if he were to declare bankruptcy, it would hurt his image far more than any of his past failed business ventures (Softkey, etc.) given the amount of attention he drew to himself and his campaign as the only one who could stop Trudeau from plunging Canada into a wave of debt or something along those lines, which would hurt him and the CPC if he does get involved in the 2019 campaign like he said he would.

On second thought, he should totally do this.