nicyr
资深人士
- 注册
- 2003-12-15
- 消息
- 2,503
- 荣誉分数
- 270
- 声望点数
- 243
感觉是退休以后就不能回去政府当contractor。很多有资历和经验的的老员工退休以后回去给政府当contractor。这样以后很难找到真正由政府经验的contractor了，感觉就是不让人占任何便宜。太阴毒
Wow, 这个值得单独开一贴，保守党纲领：取消大多数联邦公务员职位的大学学位要求，招聘时看重技能，而不是资历
- 主题发起人 LEAP
- 开始时间
问了ChatGPT：
Please explain what is Ban “double-dipping” so federal officials can’t also profit from government contracts in Canada Conservative Party Platform
回答很清晰，有例子。
The Conservative Party of Canada has proposed a policy to ban “double-dipping,” aiming to prevent federal officials from simultaneously holding government positions while profiting from government contracts.
Context and Concerns:
Recent investigations have revealed instances where public servants have engaged in "double-dipping"—working as both government employees and contractors. For example, David Yeo, CEO of Dalian, began working as a public servant at the Department of National Defence while his company secured a significant contract with the same department. This situation raised ethical concerns and highlighted potential conflicts of interest.
Furthermore, data from the Treasury Board indicates that public servants declared 78 conflicts of interest related to federal contracts in the previous year, underscoring the prevalence of such issues。
Proposed Measures:
To address these concerns, the Conservative Party's proposal includes:
The Conservative Party argues that such practices undermine public trust and result in inefficient use of taxpayer funds. They contend that allowing public servants to profit from government contracts while employed by the government creates inherent conflicts of interest and encourages unethical behavior。
Conclusion:
The proposed ban on "double-dipping" reflects a commitment to ethical governance and fiscal responsibility. By eliminating opportunities for conflicts of interest and ensuring that public servants are dedicated to their official duties without external financial incentives, the policy aims to restore public confidence in federal institutions.
Please explain what is Ban “double-dipping” so federal officials can’t also profit from government contracts in Canada Conservative Party Platform
回答很清晰，有例子。
The Conservative Party of Canada has proposed a policy to ban “double-dipping,” aiming to prevent federal officials from simultaneously holding government positions while profiting from government contracts.
Context and Concerns:
Recent investigations have revealed instances where public servants have engaged in "double-dipping"—working as both government employees and contractors. For example, David Yeo, CEO of Dalian, began working as a public servant at the Department of National Defence while his company secured a significant contract with the same department. This situation raised ethical concerns and highlighted potential conflicts of interest.
Furthermore, data from the Treasury Board indicates that public servants declared 78 conflicts of interest related to federal contracts in the previous year, underscoring the prevalence of such issues。
Proposed Measures:
To address these concerns, the Conservative Party's proposal includes:
- Prohibiting Dual Roles: Ensuring that federal employees cannot simultaneously serve as contractors for the government.
- Mandating Transparency: Requiring public servants to disclose any outside employment or business interests that could lead to conflicts of interest.
- Strengthening Oversight: Enhancing mechanisms to monitor and enforce compliance with conflict-of-interest regulations.
The Conservative Party argues that such practices undermine public trust and result in inefficient use of taxpayer funds. They contend that allowing public servants to profit from government contracts while employed by the government creates inherent conflicts of interest and encourages unethical behavior。
Conclusion:
The proposed ban on "double-dipping" reflects a commitment to ethical governance and fiscal responsibility. By eliminating opportunities for conflicts of interest and ensuring that public servants are dedicated to their official duties without external financial incentives, the policy aims to restore public confidence in federal institutions.
最后编辑:
ottawa_tj
不知名会员
- 注册
- 2015-02-22
- 消息
- 14,368
- 荣誉分数
- 4,505
- 声望点数
- 373
又问：
why does the current federal government allow “double-dipping” so that federal officials can profit from government contracts?
Here’s a breakdown of why this is happening:
The rules governing federal employees prohibit them from benefiting financially from their positions. However, some public servants and contractors have found loopholes to bypass these restrictions. For example, someone might register as a contractor or use a business they own (or are associated with) to win federal contracts—even while employed by the government.
Even when rules are in place, the enforcement mechanisms are often weak. Oversight bodies like the Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner rely heavily on self-reporting or whistleblowers. That means:
Departments don’t always disclose or keep clear records of who holds dual roles, which makes it hard to detect when someone is benefiting improperly. This lack of transparency allows some officials to profit without being caught.
In some cases, departments might hire contractors or consultants who also have roles inside the government, justifying it due to a shortage of expertise in specific areas like IT, security, or procurement. While this may fill short-term gaps, it blurs ethical lines.
Even when conflict-of-interest cases come to light, consequences are often mild or delayed, which doesn’t deter future violations. There’s rarely criminal liability—often only internal disciplinary actions, if any.
In summary, the current system doesn't intentionally support double-dipping, but ineffective oversight, vague policies, and inconsistent enforcement have created an environment where it can happen. That’s why the Conservative Party and others are pushing for a hardline ban—to close the gaps and rebuild public trust.
why does the current federal government allow “double-dipping” so that federal officials can profit from government contracts?
ChatGPT said:
The current federal government does not officially allow “double-dipping,” but the issue arises because of loopholes, lack of enforcement, and inadequate oversight in how conflict-of-interest rules are applied and monitored.Here’s a breakdown of why this is happening:
The rules governing federal employees prohibit them from benefiting financially from their positions. However, some public servants and contractors have found loopholes to bypass these restrictions. For example, someone might register as a contractor or use a business they own (or are associated with) to win federal contracts—even while employed by the government.
Even when rules are in place, the enforcement mechanisms are often weak. Oversight bodies like the Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner rely heavily on self-reporting or whistleblowers. That means:- Many conflicts go unreported.
- There’s limited auditing or investigation unless a case becomes public.
Departments don’t always disclose or keep clear records of who holds dual roles, which makes it hard to detect when someone is benefiting improperly. This lack of transparency allows some officials to profit without being caught.
In some cases, departments might hire contractors or consultants who also have roles inside the government, justifying it due to a shortage of expertise in specific areas like IT, security, or procurement. While this may fill short-term gaps, it blurs ethical lines.
Even when conflict-of-interest cases come to light, consequences are often mild or delayed, which doesn’t deter future violations. There’s rarely criminal liability—often only internal disciplinary actions, if any.In summary, the current system doesn't intentionally support double-dipping, but ineffective oversight, vague policies, and inconsistent enforcement have created an environment where it can happen. That’s why the Conservative Party and others are pushing for a hardline ban—to close the gaps and rebuild public trust.
所以现在已有的政策本来就不允许 Double Dipping，保守党只是重复了一遍，重要的是要有具体措施来保证这个政策，但是保守党没有提到任何具体措施。又问：
why does the current federal government allow “double-dipping” so that federal officials can profit from government contracts?
ChatGPT said:
The current federal government does not officially allow “double-dipping,” but the issue arises because of loopholes, lack of enforcement, and inadequate oversight in how conflict-of-interest rules are applied and monitored.
Here’s a breakdown of why this is happening:
The rules governing federal employees prohibit them from benefiting financially from their positions. However, some public servants and contractors have found loopholes to bypass these restrictions. For example, someone might register as a contractor or use a business they own (or are associated with) to win federal contracts—even while employed by the government.
Even when rules are in place, the enforcement mechanisms are often weak. Oversight bodies like the Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner rely heavily on self-reporting or whistleblowers. That means:
- Many conflicts go unreported.
- There’s limited auditing or investigation unless a case becomes public.
Departments don’t always disclose or keep clear records of who holds dual roles, which makes it hard to detect when someone is benefiting improperly. This lack of transparency allows some officials to profit without being caught.
In some cases, departments might hire contractors or consultants who also have roles inside the government, justifying it due to a shortage of expertise in specific areas like IT, security, or procurement. While this may fill short-term gaps, it blurs ethical lines.
Even when conflict-of-interest cases come to light, consequences are often mild or delayed, which doesn’t deter future violations. There’s rarely criminal liability—often only internal disciplinary actions, if any.
In summary, the current system doesn't intentionally support double-dipping, but ineffective oversight, vague policies, and inconsistent enforcement have created an environment where it can happen. That’s why the Conservative Party and others are pushing for a hardline ban—to close the gaps and rebuild public trust.
下面是一个对两党政纲的评论：
自由党深入研究细节，保守党则将PP列为政策纲领的核心
保守党 30 页的政策纲领充斥着照片，封面是保守党领袖皮PP和他的妻子的照片，内页有整整几页都是PP的照片。而 67 页自由党纲领文字较多，只有封面上一张自由党领袖卡尼的照片。
多伦多大学蒙克全球事务与公共政策学院高级研究员阿卡什·马哈拉吉表示，两党通过各自的政纲“讲述着截然不同的故事”。
他表示，自由党展现出自己有能力，并且牢牢把握着治国之道；而保守党则宣称自己致力于彻底改变政府的基本优先事项，并且“对细节不感兴趣”。
Conservatives add ‘anti-woke’ pledge to English campaign platform
Conservatives add ‘anti-woke’ pledge to English campaign platform
The Conservatives have updated their English-language platform to include the party’s promised crackdown on “woke ideology.”