Uniform or no uniform there should be a difference.

Do you Like or Dislike the above comment: 1  1

A splurge of communiques from the select few does not qualify as consultation. Just who decided to move the pension to a Quebec company anyway?

Nothing raised in the debacle qualifies for protection under Federal Privacy Act legislation. If you read the testimony of George, she should have been terminated for incompetence if nothing else. To think that this type of drivel is what a sworn and trained police officer gives to any legal body is truly disturbing.

You feel there may be a skeleton or two in the whistle blowers closet, or perhaps their motivation is suspect. Neither excuses the actions and behavior exhibited by the transgressors.

Do you Like or Dislike the above comment: 0  0

It sounds like it was deleted and removed from accountability a long time ago.

AS A NATION are we GETTING BETTER BY ACTING DISHONEST?

Are we REALLY LOOKING AFTER OUR BROTHERS INTEREST or just OUR OWN?

Do you Like or Dislike the above comment: 0  0

To me there appears to be a contradiction of the definition of ethical behavior when one side makes such allegations while not appearing to be quite so lily white themselves. Ethics are like integrity. There is no such thing as varying degrees or shades of gray. Either you have them or you don’t.

Do you Like or Dislike the above comment: 0  0

The officers in the RCMP need a union. The SRRs you refer to may be elected, however they are paid by the RCMP housed by the RCMP, promoted by the RCMP management, evaluated by the RCMP management, funded by the RCMP management and hardly qualify as independent voices of the rank and file. Its all the general membership is ALLOWED. In fact one of the biggest SRR gripes is that they are not included in a lot of upper management decisions. So much for your “democratic system of representation”.

There is no official record in the accounts committee to back up your assertions.

Simply because “ownership” is in debate does not allow for mishandling of funds. The government is only on the hook for the amount of the pension fund money that is tallied on a given day. The general membership has no say in the administration of the pension.

In fact there is NO pension fund per se. It is an account the the government has as an “accounts payable” for lack of a better term. There is no huge bank account just sitting gathering money in a positive cash flow position. It is borrowed money.

If there was no hanky panky, why would the Auditor General be saying otherwise? Why would there not have been a full transparent accounting by the chosen few? Instead of punitive transfers after half hearted inquiry attempts?

Do you Like or Dislike the above comment: 0  0

There are two opposing views and with each, the issue of liability comes into play. If the plan members truly own the fund, then liability for any financial shortfall would rest on the members and could result in reduced benefits at some point in time or substantially higher premiums simply because the money is not there to cover the pension liabilities. In the case of the federal public sector plans, the Treasury Board (aka the taxpayer) is on the hook for any shortfall due to poor market condidtions for the pension investments. Members basically have a risk free pension fund.

Regardless of the ownership issues, stakeholders were consulted throughout the process of pension and insurance outsourcing. Stakeholders include plan members, the Treasury Board and departmental officials. Plan member representatives (Staff Relations Representatives (SRR’s) voted in by the rank and file to represent members’ interests) were consulted and provided their agreement through various forums such as the Pension Advisory Board, Insurance Committee etc. TB Ministers and departmental officials (including staffing and procurement officials) also provided their agreement for every expenditure charged to the pension fund.

In a democratic system of representation, it is not expected that every member will be in full agreement with the actions of an elected representative. One must take that into consideration the next time the positions come up for election, same as in federal, provincial or municiple politics.

I still believe there were other motives behind the allegations raised by the individuals. Here we can agree to disagree, but liken this to your statement “just because there are no charges laid does not mean there is nothing there” . Same thing for motive.

Do you Like or Dislike the above comment: 0  0

Do you Like or Dislike the above comment: 0  0

What you missed curious is that the money does not belong to Treasury Board, and neither does it belong to the Insurance companies. There was NO consultation with the owners of the money, ie the rank and file. Expenses incurred in moving the pension fund was taken from the pension fund (in good faith sayeth the accused) which is NOT allowed. The Auditor General found that millions of dollars in inappropriate charges to the RCMP’s pension and insurance plans. Add that to the nepotism found and you have at the very least an ethical vacuum.

Millions squandered on very little work with no bidding or comparison estimates. No consultations, no studies, no proper evaluation or oversight, and then the highest authorities silence vocal people with punitive transfers. Add that to the obfuscating testimony given by the Deputy Commissioner Barbara George and you still do not have a movement on your ethical barometer?

Denise Revine (HRO) and her supervisor, Chief Supt. Fraser Macaulay, who took up her concerns, were sent packing as a result. In Feb. 2004, her job was: budget cuts, a boss explained; humiliating her in public, the report by special investigator, David Brown (Toronto lawyer), concluded.

Read the Hansard transcripts of George’s testimony and then tell me there was no obfuscation or anything else.

As I reminded Alcan, just because there are no charges laid does not mean there is nothing there. Even the Auditor General smelled a rat, and she is seldom off base.

Do you Like or Dislike the above comment: 0  0

The whistle blowers were paraded through the great halls of parliament as heroes and had specific honors bestowed upon them. In fact they have become untouchable. These individuals have made false allegations in parliamentary committees and the parliamentarians did their own grandstanding under the protection of parliament. Media labeled all involved as crooks and schemers in many front page headline stories over the past several years. Yet, when the allegations are proven to be false, the media buries these final results in a few short paragraphs in the back f the newspaper.

What about the individuals (RCMP senior officers and civilians) who have had their reputations, careers and lives ruined by these false allegations? What now?

What was the motive behind the allegations? The elephant never forgets.

The notion of innocent until proven guilty has just been bypassed. At the very least the honors bestowed by parliament should be revoked publicly exposing the individuals for what they really are.

Do you Like or Dislike the above comment: 0  0

Anytime a person in ultimate authority proceeds to unilateral action to the detriment of the entire group, there is an ethical issue. Why was there no consultations, legal opinions, or advertisement of options with all the members of the RCMP before the Commissioner acted?

Why would you call for charges on the whistleblowers? Charges are not the be all and the end all to settle matters Alcan. Just because one side receives no charges does not mean the other side should be charged.

Do you Like or Dislike the above comment: 0  0