Between 2001 and 2009, Ottawa awarded $12.9-billion to 35 departments and agencies charged with ensuring the safety of Canadians to use for public security and fighting terrorism. The money was allocated through the Public Security and Anti-Terrorism Initiative......
But Auditor-General Michael Ferguson said only $9.8-billion of that money was identified in reports to the Treasury Board as having been spent specifically on anti-terrorism measures by the departments and agencies. The rest was not recorded as being used for that purpose.
"The rest was not recorded as being used for that purpose"Then what purpose was the money used for? Did you actually read that sentence?This money is not lost. It went somewhere?????? It was just not recorded being used for the purposes that were claimed.This is some fancy obfuscation.
“It’s important for there to be a way for people to understand how this money was spent,” Mr. Ferguson told reporters after the report was tabled in Parliament Tuesday. “And that summary reporting was not done.”
Translation: The money was spent and the government is not recording the where or when of it.The Auditor is here to make the misappropriation look like bumbling or ineptitude. It isn't.
In response to the auditor’s report, the government released several examples of PSAT funding that was allocated between 2001 and 2009 but not reported through the Treasury Board. For example, National Defence spent $510-million on military operations such as the mission in Afghanistan.
$510 million dollars in Afghanistan to ensure the safety of Canadians in Canada? Sounds like covert ops funding to me...
The government said that more than $100-million in funding lapsed at Public Safety and the Canadian Air Transport Security Authority, whereas theCanadian Security Intelligence Service spent $100-million of its PSAT funding on secret initiatives, with little information provided to the public.
CSIS spent 100 million on "secret initiatives" with no public information. Running patsies, perhaps?
Tony Clement "acknowledged the lack of a “whole of government” approach to the spending, because the departments involved in the anti-terror initiatives were allowed to report individually."
This approach is designed to allow spending to go unreported. Many hands make light work and they also make it easier to hide the work done by all the hands
He agreed that the original plans to lay out the entire amount under one umbrella were “not up to par,” while stating that there is no evidence of wrongdoing.
"There is no evidence of wrong doing"
Define: no evidence of wrong doing? Because there is definitely evidence of wrong doing. $ 3.1 billion dollars has been spent in an unaccountable manner.What Mr Clement means when he claims" lack of evidence of wrong doing", is this.... nothing was done that was wrong. It was all as it should be.
“There is no indication by the Auditor-General that any funds have gone missing, that any funds have been misappropriated or that any funds have been misspent,” Mr. Clement said.
Of course there is no evidence of funds misspent or misappropriated. Some person or persons knows where the funds went and how they were spent.Simply put the so called democratically elected government, servant of the people, isn't telling the serfs where their money went. That is not accountability by any stretch of the imagination.Serfs
