[Canada] Canadian Politics Redux

[Barrister]

Hey CC - are you familiar with this issue?

http://www.timescolonist.com/news/local/the-wild-west-of-groundwater-billion-dollar-nestl%C3%A9-extracting-b-c-s-drinking-water-for-free-1.587568

Is this article overblown hysteria (and if so, on what points); or does it have some legitimate points?

If true that BC has no means of regulating groundwater use that seems like an oversight.

But focusing the article on Nestle, and the general tone of the article, is really quite shrill.  It repeatedly points out that Nestle is a billion dollar company (what difference does that make) and that the price of bottled water is so high (again - what difference does that make).

[crazy canuck]

Now here is something that will make me happier about the taxes I pay.  The Senate paid an accounting firm 127k to figure out that Wallin should repay 121k.

[Malthus]

Now here is something that will make me happier about the taxes I pay.  The Senate paid an accounting firm 127k to figure out that Wallin should repay 121k.

Meh, I'm sorta okay with that. The notion is that hanging her out to dry will have a deterrent value on others.

It's sorta similar to paying Beeb's salary to prosecute small-time crooks that steal less than what he's paid. 

[crazy canuck]

Now here is something that will make me happier about the taxes I pay.  The Senate paid an accounting firm 127k to figure out that Wallin should repay 121k.

Meh, I'm sorta okay with that. The notion is that hanging her out to dry will have a deterrent value on others.

They could have done that for a lot less money.  No need for a forensic audit to track every penny.  As an example, in a case of employee fraud, there is no need to track every penny.  You just need enough to prove the fraud.  Similarly, they had enough to prove inappropriate use of expense accounts after spending about 20k on the accountants.  Senate clerks could have taken it from there and followed up the rest.

This was overkill.

[Malthus]

Now here is something that will make me happier about the taxes I pay.  The Senate paid an accounting firm 127k to figure out that Wallin should repay 121k.

Meh, I'm sorta okay with that. The notion is that hanging her out to dry will have a deterrent value on others.

They could have done that for a lot less money.  No need for a forensic audit to track every penny.  As an example, in a case of employee fraud, there is no need to track every penny.  You just need enough to prove the fraud.  Similarly, they had enough to prove inappropriate use of expense accounts after spending about 20k on the accountants.  Senate clerks could have taken it from there and followed up the rest.

This was overkill.

This isn't the average employee fraud case. It has nationwide exposure concerning a major public figure.

I admit it sounds very pricey, but they had good reasons to want to pay top talent to dot every i and cross every t.

[crazy canuck]

Now here is something that will make me happier about the taxes I pay.  The Senate paid an accounting firm 127k to figure out that Wallin should repay 121k.

Meh, I'm sorta okay with that. The notion is that hanging her out to dry will have a deterrent value on others.

They could have done that for a lot less money.  No need for a forensic audit to track every penny.  As an example, in a case of employee fraud, there is no need to track every penny.  You just need enough to prove the fraud.  Similarly, they had enough to prove inappropriate use of expense accounts after spending about 20k on the accountants.  Senate clerks could have taken it from there and followed up the rest.

This was overkill.

This isn't the average employee fraud case. It has nationwide exposure concerning a major public figure.

I admit it sounds very pricey, but they had good reasons to want to pay top talent to dot every i and cross every t.

Does it really matter if they found 121,345.23 in expensese that need to be paid back rather than simply saying something in excess of 100k

[Jacob]

Walin's a Conservative appointee, right? They'd want every appearance of treating it strictly and seriously.

I agree with you that financially it's a bit of a wash and sort of silly. But I agree with Malthus that it's not that bad; but to be over zealous in dealing with this sort of thing, than too lackadaisical.

[crazy canuck]

Walin's a Conservative appointee, right? They'd want every appearance of treating it strictly and seriously.

That is kind of what I am getting at.  We get to pay twice.  Once for the apparance that this is being taken seriously and once for the real sham which is the Senate itself.

[Jacob]

That is kind of what I am getting at.  We get to pay twice.  Once for the apparance that this is being taken seriously and once for the real sham which is the Senate itself.

Oh... I didn't realize you were a Senate reformer.

[Barrister]

Now here is something that will make me happier about the taxes I pay.  The Senate paid an accounting firm 127k to figure out that Wallin should repay 121k.

Meh, I'm sorta okay with that. The notion is that hanging her out to dry will have a deterrent value on others.

They could have done that for a lot less money.  No need for a forensic audit to track every penny.  As an example, in a case of employee fraud, there is no need to track every penny.  You just need enough to prove the fraud.  Similarly, they had enough to prove inappropriate use of expense accounts after spending about 20k on the accountants.  Senate clerks could have taken it from there and followed up the rest.

This was overkill.

This isn't the average employee fraud case. It has nationwide exposure concerning a major public figure.

I admit it sounds very pricey, but they had good reasons to want to pay top talent to dot every i and cross every t.

Does it really matter if they found 121,345.23 in expensese that need to be paid back rather than simply saying something in excess of 100k

Well for us criminal types if you can't prove something then it never happened.  It's not enough to say "over $100k".

[crazy canuck]

That is kind of what I am getting at.  We get to pay twice.  Once for the apparance that this is being taken seriously and once for the real sham which is the Senate itself.

Oh... I didn't realize you were a Senate reformer.

I'm not.  I am a senate abolisher.

[Malthus]

That is kind of what I am getting at.  We get to pay twice.  Once for the apparance that this is being taken seriously and once for the real sham which is the Senate itself.

Oh... I didn't realize you were a Senate reformer.

I'm not.  I am a senate abolisher.

I hear you on that. An institution in search of a purpose.*


*Other than a retirement benefit for political hacks. 

[Jacob]

I'm not.  I am a senate abolisher.

A valid distinction.

I can support abolishing the Senate and leaving it as is. Serious reform is a waste of time.

[viper37]

I like the principle of the Senate.  I'd much prefer a reform to an abolition.  I think it's important that something else than pure numbers speak, like in the US, Germany, and many other places.  That or massive decentralization.  But Canadians hate that word, apprently.

[Barrister]

I like the principle of the Senate.  I'd much prefer a reform to an abolition.  I think it's important that something else than pure numbers speak, like in the US, Germany, and many other places.  That or massive decentralization.  But Canadians hate that word, apprently.

Canada is already significantly decentralized.  What's left to decentralize?