|
flakeloaf posted:Now THAT's a good reason. Still doesn't count as "security" but it makes a lot of sense in its own right. If the cost was low enough that it could be seen as advertising, the Liberals would have released the cost. More likely it'd be negative advertising "The Bay is charging $1,000 per refugee? What a bunch of crooks."
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2015 17:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 22, 2024 06:29 |
|
|
sliderule posted:Okay, so full disclosure of everything all the time even when it might harm someone? The notion that disclosing where we buy mittens will probably harm someone is absurd. That's my whole point. Ikantski posted:If the cost was low enough that it could be seen as advertising, the Liberals would have released the cost. More likely it'd be negative advertising "The Bay is charging $1,000 per refugee? What a bunch of crooks." And that would definitely lead people to firebomb the bay! I think I understand now 
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2015 17:43
|
|
|
flakeloaf posted:The notion that disclosing where we buy
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2015 17:45
|
|
|
Do it ironically posted:So I hear now that the government wasn't organized and we're procuring hotels for refugees from now till the end of February, 80 million dollars, and each refugee is getting $61 for food each day, wish I could spend $61 a day on food. I dunno, this seems reasonable to me. Back when I worked for a consulting company this $60 was the standard-ish per diem we got for food and stuff when travelling. You're living in a hotel. You can't cook your own food so it's takeout and restaurants for breakfast/lunch/dinner. It's not like you can buy a pile of rice and beans and chicken thighs and cook on the cheap in a hotel room. I guess we could force them to all stay in Marriotts and eat the Mysterious Breakfast "Oatmeal" Sludge that's complementary but I wouldn't wish that on anybody Do we mandate all refugees must eat the McDonalds dollar menu exclusively? Of course not. So you've got to get three good meals (and maybe a snack in the middle) each day at restaurants or takeout joints possibly in not the cheapest or most accessible areas. Yeah, I could see that running $40-50. Tack on $10 as a safety buffer and I can see why they went with $60. It's not like it's not immediately going back into the local economy. Mr Luxury Yacht fucked around with this message at 18:00 on Dec 15, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2015 17:58
|
|
|
$60 a day is pretty low actually. Think of it like an investment, we're sending the refugees to Mandarin every day, they need to get on our level of irresponsible eating habits immediately.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2015 18:01
|
|
|
I'm just saying $7,500+ for a family of four for a month of food is excessive, regardless if you're staying at a hotel or not, how is that reasonable?
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2015 18:02
|
|
|
I can say some of the clothing is donated stuff by knitters, at least in Toronto, as I'm off to drop some off.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2015 18:10
|
|
|
Dreylad posted:I can say some of the clothing is donated stuff by knitters, at least in Toronto, as I'm off to drop some off. Unacceptable, clearly this is Liberal cronyism at its finest.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2015 18:11
|
|
|
Do it ironically posted:I'm just saying $7,500+ for a family of four for a month of food is excessive, regardless if you're staying at a hotel or not, how is that reasonable? What if it is just a budgeted amount, and Trudeau treats the budget like Harper and announces a surprise surplus. Just imagine the headlines, "Trudeau welcomes thousands refugees at half his forecast cost for food stipends". Also it is worth considering what our Senators/MPs get per diem for food while sitting, $92.70. What if they were truck drivers, 50% for per diem as credit, long haul ones get 80%! Stop the presses. Maybe we should sole source contract this out to a registered charity for cost savings! https://www.tcare.ca/services_wheels.php
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2015 18:12
|
|
|
Yeah I think youre overlooking the donations that are coming from various sources too. Im sure the $25 ROOTS toques are probably being offset by stuff like the Winter Coat programs that many cities use. $60/day for food is loving luxury though. For many Canadians that is one third the weekly food budget for a family of 4.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2015 18:14
|
|
|
Furnaceface posted:$60/day for food is loving luxury though. For many Canadians that is one third the weekly food budget for a family of 4. Most Canadians aren't forced to eat only restaurant food because they have nothing to cook with where they live, nor do their food budgets reflect that.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2015 18:27
|
|
|
Furnaceface posted:Yeah I think youre overlooking the donations that are coming from various sources too. Im sure the $25 ROOTS toques are probably being offset by stuff like the Winter Coat programs that many cities use. If their residence is still temporary, it might actually be a little on the low side for a family of 4. Being able to save money on food comes in part with having a kitchen to store your food in, otherwise it usually perishes. Homeless people end up spending a lot of their money on food simply because they have to eat it right-then-and-there. Once they have a place to safely store their food, the cost of buying effectively is cut in half. A very good hotel room, at best, has probably one of those teeny-tiny fridges which don't end up cooling all that much. I doubt it's enough for a full family to use. I think the excess media attention turned towards the refugees is probably going to turn quite unhelpful quite quickly. There is a lot regarding the situation of refugee resettlement that us ordinary people simply don't understand. I'm glad they are here and out of the warzone, but moving to another country is hard enough without all of the national media constantly looking at you for the very first sign of a bad impression that the right wing will latch onto instantly. Edit: Also, I just noticed in one of Itanski's links that the CBC is trying out a /beta/ web design. While it doesn't look terrible, if they go forward with it the comments sections are going to go nuts. They have the headline css set to text-transform: uppercase; which effectively makes it look like all the headlines are yelling at you in big bold letters. Morroque fucked around with this message at 18:31 on Dec 15, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2015 18:27
|
|
|
If the government isn't including mini fridges and microwaves in the hotels they procure then they're doing an even worse job than having to get hotels in the first place because they were ill prepared.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2015 18:29
|
|
|
The only ones I've seen with more than that are like, long term stay ones like Marriott Residences. You get a slightly bigger fridge, a microwave, and a hot plate-like thing. But they're pretty few and far between. Long story short it's dumb as poo poo to expect a bunch of refugees living in hotels to cook all their meals for themselves there and the food budget they get has to reflect that. Mr Luxury Yacht fucked around with this message at 18:32 on Dec 15, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2015 18:30
|
|
|
Do it ironically posted:I'm just saying $7,500+ for a family of four for a month of food is excessive, regardless if you're staying at a hotel or not, how is that reasonable? Yeah but it's not one family of four staying for a month, it's 25,000 people coming in a few hundred at a time. I imagine they've got to put them somewhere for a day or two before they can ship them to the military bases or their sponsoring families. The math guy in me kind of questions it though. we're spending 10% of a 6 year budget in their first couple of days. quote:Chan said the government expects to spend $61 million to $77 million on overnight hotel accommodations and other activities to welcome refugees when they arrive. Morroque posted:it might actually be a little on the low side for a family of 4 It's per person quote:It states the government will reimburse up to $15 per person for breakfast, $16 for lunch and $30 for dinner.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2015 18:31
|
|
|
So it's not even a flat per-diem but a max reimbursement only on food divided per meal? Yeah, they aren't spending the full $60 per day like ever...
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2015 18:34
|
|
|
Mr Luxury Yacht posted:Most Canadians aren't forced to eat only restaurant food because they have nothing to cook with where they live, nor do their food budgets reflect that. You might be surprised and depressed to know that it is not an insignificant number of people that actually do not have that luxury.  But yeah I forgot that these motels/hotels arent going to have the capacity to store food long term which makes sense in the increased cost.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2015 18:34
|
|
|
Do it ironically posted:If the government isn't including mini fridges and microwaves in the hotels they procure then they're doing an even worse job than having to get hotels in the first place because they were ill prepared. For what it's worth, it's not like the previous government laid the groundwork for it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2015 18:37
|
|
|
Let's not forget it's been less than six weeks since the new government took power and this whole plan could actually kick off. Like, if you want people in at the speed the government promised, things are going to cost money. You're going to have to put people up in hotels for a bit because the housing and shelter isn't going to exist to house thousands of people. People in hotels are going to need food which they can't make themselves, so you have to give them the money to buy it in restaurants. You need tons of clothes *today*. You can't wait around for a competitive bid contract on winter jackets and hats to play through, the time isn't there. So it's going to cost more because whoever CAN source you thousands and thousands of sets of winter gear on the edge of winter when it's going to be most popular is charging you through the balls. If they slowed down the intake because the infrastructure wasn't there people would just be crying "Libs are libbing again!!!!". Plus, I for one would rather spend the money since it's for a noble cause. Mr Luxury Yacht fucked around with this message at 20:09 on Dec 15, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2015 19:21
|
|
|
Those are all good practical reasons for the way this is rolling out, and if the government had only cited them, it would be understandable (though one could argue that they shouldn't have made the promise if it was unrealistic, or that people should have picked up on the fact that their promised numbers and times were impossible instead of swooning for whichever "plan" let them indulge in conspicuous self-righteousness over being The Best Global Citizens, but that's neither here nor there). The problem is that they said "we are sole-sourcing this contract for security reasons", which is transparently ridiculous.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2015 20:12
|
|
|
Dallan Invictus posted:The problem is that they said "we are sole-sourcing this contract for security reasons", which is transparently ridiculous. Yeah, but anything for "security reasons" plays to reassure the fears of the paranoids afraid of refugees, even if it's just them skimming over an article or press release and reading "refugees....security reasons....will be good". Start saying what I said before and the same people will whip up a frenzy of "This government is unprepared! We should stop all refugees coming into the country until we are properly 100% prepared to <insert unreasonable standard here>" (a.k.a. never). People will start scrutinizing every cost and use it as a justification for dialing back the numbers. Like, look at how much some people got worked up about the food budget thing even though it's a perfectly reasonably *potential maximum* (the budget is *up to* and subdivided into a max for each meal. No one ever spends the loving max. They'll prob have to provide at least some receipts also, etc...) for someone having to eat literally every meal at a restaurant in a major city. Mr Luxury Yacht fucked around with this message at 20:27 on Dec 15, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2015 20:18
|
|
|
TorStar posted:Ben Carson calls for U.S. troops on Canadian border https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=44bT3S3Rx5I
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2015 20:21
|
|
|
It's bizarre to see people pending over backwards to justify the government refusing to disclose who it's paying and how much it is paying them on the grounds of something as nebulous as "security". This is unacceptable for the very simple reason that it continues the feedback loop between private business and the current governing party. We've got a long history of this in Canada and we know what it creates: a feedback loop of corruption. It amounts on an invisible tax on everything the government does: instead of getting the best deal the government reroutes it's purchases through friendly suppliers and lets them overcharge. Then those politicians get extra money and resources to remain in power. It's not a matter of this being a large or small purchase. It's about the kind of institutional culture that these attitudes perpetuate. As the old saying goes, sunlight is the best disinfectant.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2015 20:27
|
|
|
This would be a valid concern if there were anything at all that could be done about government corruption.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2015 20:30
|
|
|
Given that the degree of government corruption varies across history and between countries I think it's safe to say that while it might be impossible to literally eliminate 100% of all government corruption, it is always within the realm of possibility that we could reduce government corruption from it's current level.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2015 20:35
|
|
|
Oh no, the government is single-sourcing this item at a ridiculous cost! Just you wait, in 4 years I'll vote against those bastards and surely the new ruling party will not do this thing or anything else reprehensible. Oh, but if they do, just you wait another 4 years and I'll show THOSE bastards, too!
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2015 20:36
|
|
|
Helsing posted:It's bizarre to see people pending over backwards to justify the government refusing to disclose who it's paying and how much it is paying them on the grounds of something as nebulous as "security". How would they get the "best deal" in the required time span? Like, we're talking about a specific extremely time limited case here. Do you think it's feasible to set up an entire bidding process when you need 25,000 winter coats yesterday? No, you go "Who the gently caress is willing to get me all these coats instantly even if it means they have to decrease their store supply". Not every supplier is going to be able to do that and they'll charge you more even if they can, I mean yeah it would be ideal, but honestly I feel releasing those numbers right now would cause more backlash against the refugees, because it's going to be loving expensive and detractors are going to view it as "special treatment". Security can be construed as "security for the well being oft he refugees so hicks don't get riled up by expensive coats and start throwing poo poo at them". If the alternative is to put off bringing people over for four more months is that preferable? I'm honestly curious what your ideal, practical procedure is for this kind of thing?
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2015 20:37
|
|
|
Helsing posted:It's bizarre to see people pending over backwards to justify the government refusing to disclose who it's paying and how much it is paying them on the grounds of something as nebulous as "security". Seriously. Not to mention, if this were somehow a Conservative government doing this, the thread would be crying bloody murder. The argument appears to be "I'd rather not know in case it looks bad, because this is something I like". There is no valid reason procurement information regarding supplies for this program can't or shouldn't be made public. The only people who will have a problem with the costs (assuming nothing particularly egregious is happening) would have a problem regardless. sliderule posted:This would be a valid concern if there were anything at all that could be done about government corruption. WTF does this even mean?
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2015 20:38
|
|
|
Mr Luxury Yacht posted:If the alternative is to put off bringing people over for four more months is that preferable? Definitely not, but what's wrong with just calling it that? "The procurement process takes forever, we need this stuff now, we're buying it from Jim cause he says he can do it, we don't think he's gouging us, the AG knows the whole story", instead of "No because of security mumblemumble, they're burning crosses in Prince George as we speak so we have to be careful"
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2015 20:42
|
|
|
Haha do people really think competitive government procurement could actually happen with this resettlement timeline? Maybe for some things, but the PG community is worked to the bone as it is right now.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2015 20:42
|
|
|
infernal machines posted:WTF does this even mean? It means that there are no mechanisms in our political system by which we can correct corruption in a meaningful way. The federal conservatives were corrupt. They went on being as corrupt as they pleased until the day they were voted out. There will be no repercussion for the vast, vast majority of their corrupt action (if there is any at all). We can't go undo the damage caused by the corruption retroactively, and there's nothing stopping another majority from doing it again. Look at all the corruption already exposed about the OLP. Even in the sunlight, there will be no consequence for the guilty.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2015 20:48
|
|
|
brucio posted:Haha do people really think competitive government procurement could actually happen with this resettlement timeline? Maybe for some things, but the PG community is worked to the bone as it is right now. No one has complained about the lack of a competitive procurement, the complaint is that there's no data whatsoever on the costs or suppliers. The government is spending money without providing data on how, why, and with whom, which is something they should be obligated to do. Will the pricing for supplies be high due to lack of available alternatives? Sure. Can that be explained and justified? Absolutely. So why not release the data? sliderule posted:It means that there are no mechanisms in our political system by which we can correct corruption in a meaningful way. Sorry, I should have been clearer. WTF is the relevance of this cynical platitude in regard to justifying why the government shouldn't provide data on program spending? Are you seriously saying "Corruption in government is inevitable, so lets just let it happen where we can't see it"? infernal machines fucked around with this message at 20:54 on Dec 15, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2015 20:51
|
|
|
sliderule posted:Oh no, the government is single-sourcing this item at a ridiculous cost! Just you wait, in 4 years I'll vote against those bastards and surely the new ruling party will not do this thing or anything else reprehensible. Oh, but if they do, just you wait another 4 years and I'll show THOSE bastards, too!  Yes you caught me, it's true, I believe in using politics to try and make the government serve people better -- though really, voting every few years is the least part of that. Anyway, I realize it's a fusty silly old idea that has never worked in the past but you'll have to indulge me. Not everyone chooses to use their rather meager cognitive faculties to aggressively advocate on behalf of government secrecy. brucio posted:Haha do people really think competitive government procurement could actually happen with this resettlement timeline? Maybe for some things, but the PG community is worked to the bone as it is right now. I don't think anyone has even brought up competitive procurement for what is obviously a priority issue. I do however believe that as a citizen of a democracy it's my right to have my government's spending -- especially when it's been transferred to a private business -- be visible and traceable. And I certainly don't accept that the government can just choose not to tell me this information by mumbling something about "security". infernal machines posted:Seriously. Not to mention, if this were somehow a Conservative government doing this, the thread would be crying bloody murder. The argument appears to be "I'd rather not know in case it looks bad, because this is something I like". We've already hit peak Liberal: just mismanage a socially justicy thing like green energy or refugees and sit back while a horde of Canadians aggressively defend your mismanagement because any amount of shady behavior is acceptable as long as you're nominally dealing with a progressive issue. Mr Luxury Yacht posted:How would they get the "best deal" in the required time span? If they end up accidentally spending a bit too much then that wouldn't bother me. You'll note I'm not complaining about the refugees being given a generous (though in my mind reasonable) daily stipend for food. My objection here is the lack of transparency. Think about this from the other direction: suppose the government could have gotten better made supplies, or that they could have spent less per unit (and therefore purchased more) or that they could have gone to a supplier who could move faster -- but they didn't because instead they gave the money to someone on friendly terms with the party. That to me is the much greater concern than whether the government losses a bit of money trying to help people. Government corruption isn't harmless or incidental, it directly impacts the ability of the government to do the things that we want. And each act of corruption makes the next act more likely because it further an institutional culture. So I can accept that in some cases that procurement won't be competitive but there needs to be very hard restrictions on the government refusing to disclose who they are doing business with. Honestly I can't believe I have to explain this at such length. We're both on the side of trying to help people in need, what I am telling you is that the way the Liberals are going about it will have a negative impact on the government's ability to do it's job properly. Even if it's the case that nothing untoward happened here the fact is that by allowing and perpetuating this kind of petty and pointless secrecy we're making it more likely it will happen in the future, and that's a bad thing.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2015 20:57
|
|
|
flakeloaf posted:Definitely not, but what's wrong with just calling it that? "The procurement process takes forever, we need this stuff now, we're buying it from Jim cause he says he can do it, we don't think he's gouging us, the AG knows the whole story", instead of "No because of security mumblemumble, they're burning crosses in Prince George as we speak so we have to be careful" Well, other than what I mentioned before, on another front people will probably dig into Jim's history and find out his kid once played hockey against the kid of the assistant minister's cousin and suddenly the headlines are all "LIBBBERALL CORRUPTION!!1!". Or lets say that someone in the government DID know Jim, because they had dealt with him before they were in government and he did good work getting things fast. The press and a lot of people on the fence with either the government or the refugees will eat them alive. Do you really think most of those people are going to look at the higher cost and either 1. be all "okay cool I understand" and 2. Not blame the refugees? tbh it's asking them to commit a giant political shitstorm for doing something that's entirely necessary, getting a metric crapload of supplies super fast. Mr Luxury Yacht fucked around with this message at 21:03 on Dec 15, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2015 20:58
|
|
|
Your argument is that you're hand waving government corruption because you're uncomfortable with the notion of it
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2015 21:03
|
|
|
Mr Luxury Yacht posted:Well, other than what I mentioned before, on another front people will probably dig into Jim's history and find out his kid once played hockey against the kid of the assistant minister's cousin and suddenly the headlines are all "LIBBBERALL CORRUPTION!!1!". Or lets say that someone in the government DID know Jim, because they had dealt with him before they were in government and he did good work getting things fast. The press and a lot of people on the fence with either the government or the refugees will eat them alive. Do you really think most of those people are going to look at the higher cost and either 1. be all "okay cool I understand" and 2. Not blame the refugees? Why do optics in any way factor into whether the government should provide data on how they're spending public money? It's not up to the government to decide to withhold information because it might be construed to make them look bad. They don't serve for their own benefit, they serve the public. Government transparency isn't a pick and choose thing, because that isn't transparency, at best it's light propaganda.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2015 21:04
|
|
|
Mr Luxury Yacht posted:Well, other than what I mentioned before, on another front people will probably dig into Jim's history and find out his kid once played hockey against the kid of the assistant minister's cousin and suddenly the headlines are all "LIBBBERALL CORRUPTION!!1!". Or lets say that someone in the government DID know Jim, because they had dealt with him before they were in government and he did good work getting things fast. The press and a lot of people on the fence with either the government or the refugees will eat them alive. Do you really think most of those people are going to look at the higher cost and either 1. be all "okay cool I understand" and 2. Not blame the refugees? Jesus wept. I hope you're somehow getting paid by the Liberal party, nobody should be shilling this much for free.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2015 21:06
|
|
|
I'm saying that in this case, where there is a potential benefit in nondisclosure (that there will not be vitriol and violence directed at the supplier of the goods, expanding anti-refugee sentiment to more targets and resonating that sentiment through common enemies) and zero benefit in disclosure that maybe nondisclosure is not awful. I'm all for summary execution of the corrupt, but that's just not the way our system works (the way it works is that there is no disincentive or penalty for corruption).
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2015 21:07
|
|
|
sliderule posted:I'm saying that in this case, where there is a potential benefit in nondisclosure (that there will not be vitriol and violence directed at the supplier of the goods, expanding anti-refugee sentiment to more targets and resonating that sentiment through common enemies) and zero benefit in disclosure that maybe nondisclosure is not awful.  Holy hell. How are "Corruption exists, it's better if we don't see it", and "This could maybe look bad, so it's better if we don't know" actual arguments being put forward in favour of the government in this thread? Seriously?
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2015 21:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 22, 2024 06:29 |
|
|
Liberals gotta lib.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2015 21:18
|
|
