corruption in construction industry what are the strategy to fight the corruption as a citizen?

I think workers in either public service or private enterprise are obligated not to accept gifts of money, freebies in general, or post-dated rewards of any kind from private industry representatives, salesmen etc. Professional ethics and personal morals are at play. It happens though. Corruption hurts democracy, the environment, and more things than I can list.

The system is not very transparent. I'm afraid that kick-back and graft have been a part of the way things are done in Canada and for a long time. What I do about it is vote NDP every opportunity I get. The NDP acknowledges the need for transparency and accountability in government as well as the need for a modern and competitive electoral system. What we have in Ottawa and the provinces is decay and rot. A system of top-down influence peddling and corruption was bound to happen when we have the same two old line parties in power and sharing power for the last 140 years in a row non-stop without a break for democracy. Abuse of power and the entitlement mentality are engrained in Canada. And we should have party representation at the municipal level where a lot of the kick-back and graft occurs.

Just some food for thought, Lefauve:

http://www.indiaagainstcorruption.org/

Who ever did this wiki page seemed to want to blame socialism for the corruption.  When you think, however, of the intrisic corruption of the British in India, the root causes are probably older, and laying blame on government regulation or socialism seems more an act of bias than an act of reason.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption_in_India

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/08/24/us-india-corruption-middleclas...

As much as it makes the hair on the back of my neck stand up to say this, you are right Fidel.

I think there is a direct line of evidence from the days of Upper Canada's "Family Compact" to the systemic corruption we see in Canada today.  Much of it is so intrenched that many don't even see it as corruption.

Truly, the construction contracts are "small fries" in the larger scheme of things, and I could list example after example of what I consider corruption.  Not all of them are in government either, but encompas the media and the stock market and banking, etc.

But, "small fries" or not, it will be an issue such as that which could galvanize people in a broader movement aganst corruption, and that is what has happened in India, I believe. 

But for that to happen here, some ground work has to be laid.

I'd say for starters that we need a discussion on what we feel is corruption, and later, the solutions to them, and then later, how to encapsulate that in a way that captures the imaginations and attention of the general public, and lastly, a way to force the government into accepting some sort of omnibus bill that attacks everything all at once.

I believe that is what I think Anna Hazare has done in India, and I believe his methodology has to be looked at seriously.

Yes Lefauve, I hope we can lower our ourselvs to a Scandinanian level. That is how Canadians will see it.Need to change that perception.

As an example, the E-health scandle in Ontario could have been stopped before a "billion dollars was spent with little or nothing to show for it" if M.P.P's applications under the Freedom of Information had not been delayed.

As M.P.P.s and MLA's are our voice in our legisltures, maybe delaying a freedom of information request from them should be treated akin to obstruction of justice, with a sentence not less than two years on conviction. 

Whether it is B.C. Rail, or contruction contracts in Quebec, we have to look at where that particular scandle could have been stopped, and come up with changes that plug that hole in the dyke-- and move on to the next one. 

But, I am getting ahead of myself. 

How would you guys define "corruption"?  I think founding deffinitions are important.

We have a lot of intelligence on how minimum sentences and tough jail sentences really do little to curb crime, and while I share everyone's gut reaction to white collar crime and corruption in that I often think we should bring back the sentence of "hard labour" for such things, in more reflection, I think that's not quite the route to go.   Tougher sentences, indeed, might make what few convictions that are had even more difficult to get.

Maybe restititution is a better way to go.  Take their stuff away from them; take away their ability to amass more stuff.  I have to think they'd suffer more through that than anything else anyway.

Northern Shoveler brings up a point about law firms. It seems in both B.C. and in Ontario, with cases I am familiar with, neither province could find a "special prosecutor" who wasn't some how affiliated with a political party.  It may be that this was by design-- they fixed the outcome by chosing a "special prosecutor" for their poltical affiliations.  I suspect it could also be that it's just impossible or near impossible to find a lawyer or law firm that isn't politically affilliated.

Do we recall Stockwell Day's deffense against libel?  He libeled a lawyer in a letter to the editor saying, basically, that only a pedophile would deffend a pedophile.  The lawyer was defending a pedophile at the time. 

It's a slam dunk case, really, and should have been settled quickly and out of court.  I think the lawyer was only asking for about $40,000 in damages.   But Day drew out the case, fought tooth and nail.  And, since he was an Albertan Cabinet Minister at the time, all his legal fees got paid for by the Alberta tax payer.

To a law firm that was a big contributor to the Reform party, which Day was moving to. 

Seems to me that this is just a way to legally launder money and favours between law firms and political parties.

Fast forward a bit to the long discussions we had on the issue of M.P.'s  top secret expense accounts.  A Toronto Liberal M.P. came out and said the real reason they want to keep them secret is because of all the M.P.'s that have been sued by their employees.  Some might think it would hurt them politically, but I think it's because this would expose the kind of corruption and running scam that I suspect is happening via the secret expense accounts.

Here's how it could work:

Say I'm an M.P. and Fidel, you are my long serving Consituency Assistant.  Let's say you have a job opportunity somewhere else.  Instead of leaving, I suggest to you that I fire you in a stupid way-- and you turn around and sue me for wrongfull dismissal.

As an M.P., I then have a blank check to go out and find the legal firm that, say, has done work for me in the past, or that might extend help in the future-- and drag out a case and pad the billable hours to the max or even beyond.  I mean, who's watching?

You, Fidel, end up with a generous settlement, and I end up with a favour paid or bought from a law firm.  Which may pay divedends when I, say, run over a cyclist and a buddy appoints a "special prosecutor" to act more like a deffense lawyer than prosecutor. 

As far as I can see, no laws have been broken, and very little of an unethical nature would even have to be said between all the parties involved.  Just a nod and a wink here and there.

Trying to stop this kind of corruption (and this is just an example, not the worst or least of it) isn't just about making everyone play fair.  This is the nuts and bolts, the gory details of how political power actually works.  If we are ever to take back our democracy, this is one head of the hydra that has to be lopped off and cauterized.

And if we recall, also, Boom Boom, this is what was exactly happening with the stone work renovations on the Parliament Buildings in Ottawa.

Proving beyond any shadow of a doubt that corruption is in the very foundations of Parliament.  Both literally, and figuratively.

I came across this on crackbook, Fidel.  I always figured there was some "pinch points" if corruption and corrupting influence; and I always wanted to do this kind of analysis.  But of course I didn't have the intellectual, financial or time resouces to do something as complete as this:

http://planetsave.com/2011/08/28/who-runs-the-world-network-analysis-rev...

I don't think this is tin foil hat stuff, though the link might give the impression it is.

What I always considered "pinch points", these guys call "Bow Ties". 

These guys identify Barclay's Bank as the central focus.  I would have thought Goldman Sachs. 

With the fiancial world, what we are seeing is a coup d'etat, and I think it will be some time before enough people realize it before a movement against these fascists can materialize.

The corruption involved is how our elected representatives have gone along with it for whatever reason.  Stark examples of the British Labour Party, the Irish Labour party and the Greece Socialist party.  They have betrayed workers to the bone and that surely is corruption.