Stephen Harper's Top Ten Cabinet Duds

So, apparently Stephen Harper is going to shuffle his cabinet tomorrow. And hopefully apologize to New Zealand on Greg Thompson's behalf, before they cut off our sheep supply.

And by the by, I'm willing to fly business/first class to New Zealand and can be at Rideau Hall for the morning, if anyone at the PMO is reading this. If you fly me Air Canada, you can even book it in economy and I'll use a certificate to upgrade. See, I'm saving the taxpayers money already!

And if the PMO is reading, hopefully the reports that tomorrow’s minor cabinet shuffle will reward incompetence by retaining ministers who have failed miserably in their portfolios are untrue. But alas, Stephen Harper seems content to keep a tight rein on the Conservative agenda and stick to a course that lacks any vision for Canada’s future.

If Harper was willing to start clearing out the deadwood however, here are ten ministers he'd be well advised to shuffle off into the sunset:

1. Lisa Raitt

Her greatest hits: Botching Canada’s medical isotope supply; her insensitive “cancer is sexy” comment caught on tape; leaving a top secret briefing binder at a TV station and then forcing her young ministerial aide to take the fall for it; signing off on thousands of dollars of questionable expenses as President and CEO of the Toronto Port Authority (TPA) and then, once in federal cabinet, organizing a partisan fundraiser out of the TPA offices. She now faces no less than three investigations – by the Ethics, Privacy and Lobbying Commissioners.

2. Peter Mackay

Ever since becoming a reality TV star, Mr. Mackay’s ratings have plummeted – first for attacking sympathetic civil servants who speak the truth, and then for using the Canadian Forces as a shield for all political criticism.

3-5. Jim Flaherty
Tony Clement
and John Baird

In a move that should terrify investors, Mr. Harper is leaving his Harris-era cohort of front-bench ministers intact.

John Baird has little more to show for his infrastructure spending spree than delayed projects and underwhelming job creation.

Jim Flaherty is responsible for a record $56 billion deficit.

And Tony Clement shrunk his side of the balance sheet after giving away Nortel’s made-in-Canada technology.

Mike Harris would no doubt be proud of what his children hath wrought.

6. Jim Prentice

The onetime cabinet superstar has lost all independent willpower. Charged with the impossible task of trying to communicate the government’s excuses for inaction on the environment, he became the laughing stock of the world in Copenhagen.

7. Gerry Ritz

Combining his cavalier attitude with a dangerous mismanagement style, Minister Ritz felt it was funny to make jokes while Canadians were dying of listeriosis.

8. Jay Hill

Conservative MPs use Mr. Hill’s Parliamentary "disruption" manual as a guide on how to dismantle important committee work. Mr. Hill’s Afghanistan committee no-show technique wasn’t even good enough for Mr. Harper, who took it a step further and canceled Parliament altogether.

9. Helena Guergis

After nearly two years of promising an ‘Action Plan’ to advance women’s equality, we wish that Minister Guergis had achieved nothing. Instead, she has stood silently in the background while her cabinet colleagues chipped away at women’s equality rights – whether through cuts at Status of Women, the cancellation of the Court Challenges Program or attacks on pay equity – leading to a growing gender gap under her government.

10. Stephen Harper

Our Prime Minister has shuttered our dearest democratic institution for the second time in a year so he can stage daily Potemkin village photo ops. He followed up his tirades against delayed government legislation by killing 36 of his own bills, and blew up his Senate reform agenda by appointing more cronies in one year than any Prime Minister in history.

But if Stephen is shuffling deckchairs on the Titanic, perhaps it would be best if the captain went down with the ship...

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Conservatives wanted LOWER listeria standards

Stephen Harper and Gerry Ritz are talking tough now about strengthening our food safety system, after a listeria outbreak has led to the death of at least 15 people. And Tony Clement is down in Denver making macabre jokes. But before? Before the crisis they were doing everything they could to weaken the system:

OTTAWA — The Canadian government strongly opposed tougher U.S. rules to prevent listeria and lobbied the United States to accept Canada's more lenient standards, internal documents reveal.

Briefing notes prepared by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency for an April 7, 2006, meeting with the board of directors of the Canadian Meat Council outline how both industry and the Canadian government were frustrated with the increased precautions the United States was demanding.

Specifically, Canada opposed daily inspection visits and the testing of finished products for Listeria monocytogenes.

Further, the documents show the CFIA agreed to the meat packing and processing industry's request to end a 20-year-old practice of having inspectors issue reports and rankings on facilities. The Canadian Meat Council complained the reports were ending up in the hands of reporters through the Access to Information Act, leading to bad coverage.

Yes, we wouldn't want the media to find out which plants were failing inspections and not meeting standards, would we? They would tell the public, and the public might decide to buy their food from the safer plants, forcing the bad plants to either improve or go out of business.
That would be...wait a minute, isn't that exactly how the free market is supposed to work?

The government documents indicate Canada's meat producers were frustrated that they must add more stringent safeguards to their production lines when producing meat for export to the U.S. market.

"Industry would prefer a single set of standards for both the Canadian and American market," states the document prepared by Dr. Richard Arsenault of the CFIA, anticipating what meat council board members would tell CFIA at the meeting. "[The CMC] will also express their frustration about the recent [United States Department of Agriculture] imposition of product testing for Listeria monocytogenes and of daily visits in U.S.-eligible meat processing plants."

When it comes to something as fundamental as food safety, we shouldn't strive for the lowest common denominator. And in certainly seems in hindsight like more listeria testing would have been wise. If we need to harmonize standards, and given the heavily export-driven nature of our economy I think that makes sense, shouldn't we harmonize to the highest standard?

Gerry Ritz thinks so...now, after the crisis has erupted:

Agriculture Minister Gerry Ritz, who is responsible for the CFIA, hinted this week that Canada might move toward U.S. practices of preventing listeria, such as the pasteurization of packaged meat.

But before the crisis his department was taking a different track:

But the documents reveal the CFIA lobbied the United States to adopt Canada's rules.

"The CFIA is working at bilateral levels to convince the USDA that its system is equivalent to theirs in order to minimize the need for extra import rules," the document says.

It's easy for Stephen Harper and Gerry Ritz to say now, after 29 confirmed cases of listeriosis and the death of 15, that they support higher standards. But these documents and the documents released previously show their true thinking on the matter.

It's their thinking then, before a crisis erupted, before the public and media glare was on them, that showed their true judgment. And they had it completely wrong. They're only now being shamed into stronger action by the glare of the public spotlight, following the eruption of a food safety crisis.

On how many more issues, on how many more matters that have yet to become a crisis, have they and are they now executing this same bad judgment? On how many more issues, on how many of the little, every-day decisions of governing that are so impactful on the country, are they donning they applying their ideological mantras to their decisions instead of governing in the best interests of all Canadians?

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Transport Canada whistleblower speaks-out on Agriculture Canada case

On the weekend I wrote about the ongoing war being waged in whistleblowers by the Stephen Harper Conservatives and how this flies in the face of their election promises, and I highlighted the recent case at Agriculture Canada where whistleblower Luc Pomerleau was fired for bringing serious concerns about the government's plans for our food inspection system to light. Particularly important, given the ongoing listeria situation with Maple Leaf Foods. The whistleblower was fired by the government, and the person who fingered him was praised by Agriculture Minister Gerry Ritz, who openly mused about “charges” for the whistleblower.

Shortly after this post I heard by e-mail from Ian Bron, himself a whistleblower. Bron, a former naval officer, was chief of marine security regulatory affairs at Transport Canada when he blew the whistle on systemic mismanagement that was undermining the safety of Canada's marine transportation system in a report he sent to the auditor general, Transport Minister Lawrence Cannon, the Public Service Integrity Office and the Senate committee on national security and defence.

I asked him if he would share his thoughts on the Agriculture Canada whistleblower case, and he agreed. I think he makes some very interesting points from the perspective of a former civil servant, and as a whistleblower that has faced government reprisial for his actions.

I know only what I’ve read in the papers, but my gut reaction is that ministers are sometimes misled by their senior executives. This happens because all too often self interest and the public interest get confused in the minds of these executives. This leads to a peculiar line of thinking which goes something like this: “If the public finds out about this, it will look bad. That will erode confidence. Eroded confidence will undermine the system.” Thus, what is bad for an individual (or worse, a group of individuals) ends up being depicted as bad for Canadians. And, once committed to the story, it becomes impossible for the executives to change direction. They dig in, circle the wagons and hope the attacks will peter out. And usually they do.

The problem is made worse if a minister is too accepting of the version of events fed to him. This may be the case here – for I seriously doubt the Minister Ritz has any first-hand about Mr. Pomerleau’s actions or motives, or those of the people who fired him.

As this matter is likely destined to end up in the courts, Bron also makes the point that Ritz's strident comments, which his staff later attempted to backtrack somewhat, could be even more damaging to the government.

What concerns me is that he has joined the attack. There in no mistaking this: he has publicly stated that Mr. Pomerleau is guilty and deserves the punishment he received. This is, in my opinion, shocking. First of all, this matter is far from over; the union will fight for Mr. Pomerleau and the matter may end up in the courts. The Minister may be forced to eat his words one day. Secondly, the breach as reported was so small (especially considering the regularity with which sensitive documents are found in Ottawa garbage cans), the circumstances so questionable and the punishment so harsh that ordinary caution should have tempered his reactions.

His suggestion that Mr. Pomerleau should face charges might also cause some discomfort to his colleague, Maxime Bernier, who left far, far more sensitive documents at his girlfriend’s house.

An excellent point about the Bernier case, something I'm sure Ritz wasn't thinking about when he made that comment. And it serves to remind us that the Bernier case remains unsettled, and is another one of the issues Stephen Harper hopes will just go away in his rush to an election.

Just as bad is the signal that these comments sends out to others in government who wish to either report wrongdoing or ensure proper consideration is made of issues before a decision is made. Based on what I’ve read, I believe that Mr. Pomerleau was acting without malice and with the intent to do good. To crush him under the heel like this looks like a nasty betrayal of past promises to protect whistleblowers. Even if this case had justified the firing of Mr. Pomerleau (which I doubt), it just sets a bad example to everyone – from managers to workers.

The timing was also particularly poor. The recent listeriosis deaths linked to Maple Leaf products, new leaked documents about planned cuts at Agriculture and Agri-foods Canada and the criticism of food labeling are all front-page news and all lend credence to Mr. Pomerleau’s concerns.

Bron also notes the parallels to the Allan Cutler case, a point I made in my initial post on the Agriculture Canada case.

Minister Ritz should take a look back into recent history to learn a lesson or two. When Allan Cutler first came forward, his concerns were swept under the rug and he was punished. When he blew the whistle, the effort to bury the problems got even more vigorous. The ultimate result was a major scandal that essentially led to the election of the Tories. Does he really want to use the same tactics used then? And is he really willing to trust his senior executives to the point that it may endanger his own career – and, more importantly, the lives of Canadians?

Finally, Minister Ritz needs to better acquaint himself with the concept of whistleblowing. I believe I can speak for Allan Cutler – who is a friend – and other whistleblowers in saying we are offended by Minister Ritz’s characterization of the person who reported Mr. Pomerleau. He/she is not a whistleblower. The individual may or may not have acted in good faith – it doesn’t matter. Whistleblowing was defined by Ralph Nader in 1972 as “an act of a man or a woman who believing in the public interest overrides the interest of the organization he serves, and publicly blows the whistle if the organization is involved in corrupt, illegal, fraudulent or harmful activity.” It is a good description that much better fits Mr. Pomerleau.

One wonders what the impact of the consistently hostile actions by this Harper Conservative government against civil servants that blow the whistle in the interests of Canadians will be. Will it have a chilling effect? I suspect that's what the government is hoping, and perhaps it will to a degree. I suspect, though, that it will only anger civil servants, and lead to more leaks and brown envelops to the opposition and the media.

More importantly though, I think this Harper war on whistleblowers will only serve to discourage our best and brightest from pursuing a career in the civil service. That would be unfortunate for all Canadians.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Harper’s war on whistleblowers: What would Allan Cutler say?

If I were an enterprising young political journalist, or even a lazy middle-aged political journalist, I’d be looking to get on the phone with Allan Cutler and ask him what he thinks about this story:

Agriculture Minister Gerry Ritz praised an unnamed public servant yesterday for fingering former Canadian Food Inspection Agency biologist Luc Pomerleau as the source of a politically embarrassing leak.

"Some people have likened him to a whistleblower. I dismiss that," said Mr. Ritz in a phone interview. "The whistleblower was the gentleman who turned Mr. Pomerleau in."

Mr. Ritz went so far as to predict Mr. Pomerleau "will face charges," but his office later said the minister misspoke.

Word of CFIA plans to save money by giving industry a greater role in food inspections, among other cutbacks, first became public last month when Mr. Pomerleau was fired for emailing what has since been termed a cabinet document to his union.

Mr. Pomerleau, who was also a union representative, said yesterday that he found the document on an internal server that was available to all CFIA employees and forwarded it both because of its impact on CFIA jobs and public policy.

So in Conservative-land, it’s not the guy that made public plans to gut the public food inspection system in favour of an “industry-led” program that's the whistleblower, it’s the guy that fingered him as the leaker and got him fired.

I mention Allan Cutler, because his claim to fame is as the sponsorship scandal whistleblower. The Conservatives were so eager to get him as their candidate in Ottawa-South in the last election, they paid another candidate to step aside and then denied it until he sued (they settled). They trumpeted Cutler (who went on to lose to David McGuinty) as a model civil servant and the principled whistleblower. And they promised in their campaign platform to take greater steps to protect whistleblowers such as Cutler:



Oh how far they’ve come, eh Mr. Cutler? And this is far from the first hostile anti-whistleblower act by the Harper conservatives:

*A doctor in Northern Alberta who previously drew action to increased cancer rates he believes may be related to carcinogenic pollution from the tar sands development is now the subject of a complaint to the College of Physicians and Surgeons regarding his claims. The complainant is none other than Health Canada.

*A contract worker arrested for allegedly leaking the Conservative government's climate-change plan is portraying himself as a defender of the public interest and a victim of a politically motivated "witch-hunt."

Jeff Monaghan was arrested Wednesday and led out of his Environment Canada office in handcuffs by the RCMP. He was quickly released, but still faces possible charges of breach of trust for allegedly sending documents to a journalist and environmental activists.

I recall something about a scientist in B.C., I think from Natural Resources, but I can’t find the background. And of course the biggie:

*Federal Natural Resources Minister Gary Lunn defended his decision to fire the head of Canada's nuclear safety watchdog Wednesday, arguing she lost the government's confidence over the way she handled the shutdown of a medical isotope-producing nuclear reactor late last year.

From trumpeting a whistleblower as their star candidate and promising to protect them, the Conservatives have gone to firing whistleblowers instead, and musing about criminal charges. As I said, I wonder what Allan Cutler would say? It seems he now offers advice on these issues for a living:

UPDATE: I'm informed that Allan Cutler is actually now the president of Canadians for Accountability. According to their Web site, they're a group of a volunteers dedicated to:

Educating Canadians about whistleblowing and abusive management situations through counselling, education and assistance in accordance with the law,


To promoting an understanding of whistleblowing: what it is, the dynamics, the culture, mechanisms and solutions,


Promoting public awareness of the importance and value of whistleblowing in the Canadian context, including labour unions, senior management and employees, and


Advocating for a culture of truth, transparency and integrity in Canada's public and private sector institutions and Canadian society in general.

And it looks like perhaps some of the whistleblowers wronged by the government should perhaps give these guys a call, maybe they can help:

If you've witnessed wrongdoing in the workplace, and don't know what to do, we're a sympathetic ear. Call us or meet us, and we'll do our best to help you understand your situation and what you can do about it.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers