Like I said before, you can cut their pay, but don't ever, ever kick them in the teeth

Workers who help Canadians obtain employment insurance benefits are demanding that Human Resources Minister Diane Finley apologize and resign for implying they have caused the backlogs that are forcing some jobless people to wait months for their first cheque.

The Canada Employment and Immigration Union (CEIU) said Thursday that about 2,500 of its members have filed grievances against Ms. Finley over a letter she wrote in November to the Charlottetown Guardian.

Cut jobs, attack pensions and benefits they fought for and won fairly, yes, they'll grumble for a long time before they act.  But blame them publicly for the elected government's screw-ups on top of all that, try to make them the villain in how cuts to services affect Canadians,  well, back at you  - 2,500 times over.

Good for you, folks at EI.  We add our many voices to yours.

More muzzling?

The harper government™ has released, through Treasury Board,  rules for public servants on use of social media. 

"We’re basically saying it’s ok to dialogue with the public, it’s ok to open up government information, it’s ok to be more productive by sharing information, but there is a framework you are going to have to develop." - clement

But open government advocate David Eaves said the rules don’t jibe with Clement’s message about improving the flow of information.  "This entire document is about improving the control of information," he said.

But while the rules may help persuade managers to let their employees go online, fear of running afoul of policy will make people’s lives more difficult, Eaves said.

Eaves says the new rules will slow communications to a crawl as departments struggle to make sure any messages distributed via the Net will be subject to far too much scrutiny.

Communications

1.      Verify that the planned Web 2.0 initiative is congruent with Government of Canada themes and messages, as well as departmental communications' and consultations' objectives and requirements. Privy Council Office should be engaged early in the process to ensure alignment of Web 2.0 activities with Government of Canada communication and consultation priorities;

As this applies, I believe, to all government departments and agencies, this gives harper that foot into controlling independent agencies’ communications products, something he has been trying to do for some time.  PCO takes an oversight position, here.

Another area of concern is how the new rules address public servants’ private use of social media.

For Professional Networking & Personal Use:

1. Your obligations as outlined in the Values and Ethics Code for the Public Service apply at all times, particularly if your employer could be identified through your use of Web 2.0 tools and services.

Simply put, anytime public servants express themselves publicly, they must make it very clear they are speaking as a private citizen, and not on behalf of their department.  However, perception is recognized as playing a part, so even a disclaimer does not protect public servants from speaking if it comes out that they are public servants.  That’s problematic since it would only take exposing the person’s identity and job to give an abusive government an excuse to shut down public servants who are occasionally critical of the elected government.

2. By virtue of your employment, information shared through Web 2.0 tools and services may be perceived as an official Government of Canada position rather than your own opinion. You should therefore clearly state in your account profile that the views expressed are your own and not those of your employer. However, it is important to note that such a disclaimer does not absolve you of your obligations as a public servant, including your duty of loyalty to the Government of Canada… An employee's public commentary (including online activity on blogs and other social media platforms) about an organization, including its minister, is subject to scrutiny under the duty of loyalty requirement.

What are the boundaries of duty and loyalty?  Will public servants be willing to test these under a government that treats any kind of dissent as criminal?  Will they have to be concerned about being spied upon?  Are they now more apprehensive over the changes to online surveillance Toews wants to implement?   

Will public servants place their loyalty to serving the public before heavy-handed policies passed down by a secretive, repressive government?  Is not the first loyalty of public servants to the public?

Only publicly available information may be shared externally, unless you are specifically authorized otherwise. Always check permissions required to reproduce or distribute any information, including Government of Canada content such as illustrations, photographs, videos, audio, logos, trade-marks or wordmarks.

There’s a troubling contradiction there.  While publicly available info can be shared, that right can be over-run by…who?  A Minister?  A Deputy Head?  A manager?  On what basis?  Already, this latest set of rules contrains public servants from using the same resources as any other private citizen.

“Duty of loyalty to the Government of Canada” comes up several times in the rules and seems to override the public servants’ rights as private citizens to express opinions or criticize.

Fulfillment of these obligations is expected at all times as follows:

• Public servants owe a duty of loyalty to the Government of Canada;
• Do no harm to the reputation of your employer;

But what if your employer is acting inappropriately and this has become information available to anyone, such as the case of Clement and the G-20 funds, or political aides interfering with ATIP requests, or the AG reports that expose lack of transparency and waste of funds?  Would criticizing Clement’s actions and lack of accountability be considered a violation of the rules if the public servant posting as a private citizen works for TBS?

There is a single line that offers public servants some small protection against abuse of power by political bosses -

·         public servants shall loyally implement ministerial decisions, lawfully taken.

 

However, that statement is immediately followed by more reinforcement of “duty of loyalty.”

·       

  In  In Canada's system of parliamentary democracy, public servants owe a duty of loyalty to their employer, the Government of Canada. This includes refraining from any activity that could compromise the efforts of Government organizations to deliver on their mandate.

Eaves is right.  These new rules are more to control communications than encourage them, and this extends even to a public servant’s right to express themselves as private citizens.

Are the CON-bots broken?

Nope.  It's an article with "Clement" and "transparency" in the title.  Comments: 136.  Not a one praising or defending harper or gazebo.

"Clement seeks ‘culture change’ on government transparency"

...Mr. Clement acknowledges the criticisms directed at his government when it comes to openness, but says he hopes Wednesday's announcement will serve as a signal to all government officials that the Conservatives are serious about a “culture change” in favour of transparency.

OK, so government officials need to know that the CONs are serious and we the public are being told this as well, so next time a Parliamentary aide oversteps and blocks an ATIP request, or a Minister interferes or flat out refuses to provide information,  if it can't be blamed on the public servants, the CONs can get Poilievre to not-respond to questions on his party's lack of transparency by blathering on about this particular move.

That's like a driver up on charges for a hit and run DUI saying, "but Your Honour, I constantly lecture my neighbours on safe driving and I don't understand why the prosecutor doesn't do the same."

Those damn Liberal public servants!

Taking time away from their cushy, well paid jobs to attend a partisan farewell party!  That’s the Liberals for you.
 

Oh...wait...

The farewell, which nearly 200 communication personnel from various departments were forced to attend was for...Dimitri Soudas?

What?  Couldn’t he Facebook enough of his own friends to attend voluntarily?

The article is in French,

but the gist of it is –

nearly 200 high level public servants were forced to go to a farewell party for Soudas.  They were lead to believe that the “meeting”  had to do with communications in the federal government.  Many thought it would have to do with cuts to departments.

The order of the day was not specified and the notice was sent by the PCO to high level communication managers in all ministries, assistant deputy ministers, and DGs.  Each invitee could bring up to five senior members of their team.

The meeting consisted of what has been described as a completely useless, very general talk given by Jonathan Massey-Smith, head of PCO Comm. Half way through the meeting, Massey-Smith and his assistant delivered a long eulogy on Soudas and gave him a gift.  Then, further torture ensued as the captive audience had to endure another lengthy speech, this time given by Soudas.

Apparently, the invitees could not leave the farewell bit because i twas part of the whole meeting.  Some public servants wanted to leave, feeling uncomfortable because of the way they were forced to attend an obviously partisan event, but didn’t dare.

 
Donald Savoie, author of several books on public administration said it’s the first time he has heard of this being done, adding that while it is essential that public servants work with political employees, neutrality in the public service must be preserved.  It must remain non-partisan by keeping the lines between politics and public service very distinct.  By not informing the public servants what the event involved was, Savoie said, brazen.

No kidding.  It removed the public servants’ right – and responsibility – to decide it this is a function they should attend, and whether or not it crossed that neutrality line they must maintain.

Hear that? That’s the sound of democracy at work.

Chantal Hébert brought a smile to my face this morning, confirming what I said back here.  Stevie has greatly misjudged Canadians thinking we are a submissive lot who will endlessly bow down to his bullying.  I am very happy to see more and more of them prove him wrong. 

 

One result is that there is increasingly open talk of government witch hunts taking place deep into normally apolitical public service territory…These days, more and more former senior civil servants are uncharacteristically speaking out in public against the actions of the Harper government.

Not surprisingly, the public opinion ripples are widening with every purge.  Last winter’s prorogation backlash was unexpectedly strong. Over the summer, the level of engagement of Canada’s civil society on the census issue has been unprecedented, with otherwise Conservative-friendly constituencies among the vocal critics of the decision to abolish the long form.

This week, the circle widened again to include more otherwise natural allies of the Conservatives like the veterans and the country’s police associations.

It isn’t only the upper ranks who are rumbling.

Harper said the new centre would provide 550 jobs in the region. But he said that would be fewer payroll jobs in total than there are presently across the country.He said the system would be more automated and that a wave of retirements are expected over the next few years."We will employ less people going forward than we're currently doing," he said. "But we will also create a workforce here ... that we anticipate will be a lot more stable than we have in some other parts of the country." 

PSAC's President, John Gordon points out that as the Miramichi jobs are created,  others will be cut throughout the country, with 30-35% in Ottawa alone.  So Harper will be taking jobs away from densely populated areas and making the job situation in Miramich more "stable" than other parts of the country.

Okaaaaaaayyyyy...

Impolitical points out another Harper oddity (amazing anyone can even focus on one anymore), a little detail that has not been lost on public servants:

Harper went to New Brunswick today in a fit of premature termination politics, already making plans for a post-gun registry world: "Payroll jobs for long-gun registry workers." A little presumptuous of the boss, don't you think? That gun registry vote comes at the end of September and it's not at all assured that Mr. Harper's bill to destroy the registry will pass.

That's right.  Harpsie can't pass up a chance at a good photo op and magnanamous gesture as rumours of a fall election grow, so why wait until the vote takes place that would actually put the folks in Miramichi out of work?  Arrogant on his part to act as though shutting down the registry is a done deal.

John Baird can make all the we love us them thar public servants statements all he wants, but the brazen politics of such moves as the Miramichi one and cutting jobs all across Canada to boost votes in a single riding does not engender trust among the public servants.

But then, Harper is not only arrogant, but really, really out of touch with people.  Really, Steve, you're not getting out of the car?

Appeasing the political masters: the public service of the future?

I have been saying for years that one of the biggest dangers our democracy faces is the undermining of the independence of our public service.  Don Martin wrote a very good column showing why this is true.  If you read nothing else today read that, all the way through.  The last bit is chilling:

But this appears to be an arms-length move done independently to appease the political masters. If so, it will send a shiver deep into departments or agencies orbiting the government’s axis of direct or indirect influence.

If nothing else, Supt. Cheliak could become a polar-opposite example of how the Harper government treats its appointees.  Veterans Ombudsman Pat Stogran is one extreme. He became an angry thorn for a government that promptly denied him a contract extension after one term.

William Elliott may prove to be the other extreme. For doing the government this very big personnel transfer favour, the troubled civilian police commissioner is now officially bulletproof from premature contract termination and may be a very safe bet for an extension.

More and more I hear (from anonymous sources - I always wanted to say that!) that the very language in high level meetings in some departments is changing.  Rather than driving a point home on the delicate nature of a project by saying how it will affect the public they are paid to serve, some - and certainly not all - execs talk about how this will help or hinder the Harper government.  They speak as though this is their mandate.

We can’t fluff this off thinking it’s just a few bad lackeys and the integrity of the PS will hold because the bulk of public servants know why they are there.  While the seasoned public servants are getting fed up (and I believe starting to push back), Babyboomers are set to retire and we’ll have a whole fresh bunch of eager beavers stepping in not knowing any better and thinking their job is to serve the elected government, and that includes making the political masters look good.

Unethical PMs like Harper won’t have to work so hard at twisting things.  The new public service will do it for them.  As Martin pointed out with Elliot, so it will be with most appointees until we no longer have a non-partisan service. 

This is one of the most - if not the most - serious issue we face with Harper.  Everything else - human rights, environmental protection, housing, wages, how our troops are dealt with depend on a public service that can impartially advise and provide services to the public.  If we cannot count on impartial studies and reports, on truth in reporting, on the welfare of the public before all, we are at the mercy of whatever the leader of the day decides Canada should be.  We could get lucky and have an altruistic type who really cares about all of us equally, but the odds go the other way.  People who enjoy using power tend to be the ones who seek powerful positions.

A few good men and women

Kelly Egan wonders why we rarely see public servants giving interviews.

POGGE notices that the turnover rate in the public service is rather high.

I'd agree.

Fired or dismissed:

Luc Pomerleau, biologist, Food Inspection Agency for whistleblowing.

Douglas Tipple, consultant, PWGSC, set up then fired for his advice on real estate.

David Rotor, consultant, PWGSC, set up then fired for his advice on real estate.

Arthur Carty, National Science Advisor, phased out.

Alan Leadbeater, Canadian Information Commission, dismissed.

Paul Kennedy, chair, Complaints Commission for the RCMP, term not renewed, mid-report

Peter Tinsley, chair, Military Police Complaints Commission, term not renewed, mid-report

Adrian Measner, Canadian Wheat Board, fired for disagreeing with Harper plans

Johanne Gelinas, Environment Commissioner, dismissed for a scathing report

Linda Keen, CNsc, fired for doing her job

RCMP Chief Supt. Marty Cheliak, dismissed, apparently for speaking in favour of the long gun registry

Pat Stogran, ombudsman for veterans, dismissed for doing his job

Others who were probably forced out or encouraged to leave:

Robert Marleau, Information Commissioner, stonewalled, resigned

Jean-Guy Fleury, chair, Immigration & Refugee Board, resigned out of frustration

Jean-Pierre Kingsley, Elections Canada, stonewalled, resigned while investigating the CONs

Smeared, muzzled, or set up:

Richard Colvin, diplomat, attacked viciously for telling the truth as part of his job

Rémi Beauregard, Rights & Democracy, died, heart attack after cruel attacks from Harper appointees

Louise Arbour, UN High Com. for Human Rights, was refused support on 2^nd term, publicly rebuffed

Kevin Page, publicly rebuffed repeatedly, budget cut back

Munir Sheikh, resigned because he refused to lie for the Harper government

This list does not include those anonymous public servants who may have been fired or forced out for refusing to violate their non-partisan mandates but never made the news.

Over two years ago - May 2008, we were warned of this purge:

Information Commissioner Robert Marleau told The Hill Times recently that the Harper government has been quietly drafting about 25 government policies that impact on the rights of officers of Parliament, and that it has been happening without their knowledge or input.

So, fellow Canadians, are you ready to oust this Harper government, or are you going to wait until the public service becomes just another tool of Harper's to violate your rights, lie to you, deny you the right to know what they and the elected government are up to?

It's not a bunch of hungry, tired Tamil refugees you should be afraid of.

Update: a few more, thanks to the Vancouver Sun

Steve Sullivan, victims of crime ombudsman, term was not renewed, publicly took issue with the Harper government's tough-on-crime agenda.

Sheridan Scott, Competition Bureau head, ran afoul environment minister, quit after being told her appointment would not be renewed.

Bernard Shapiro, ethics commissioner, clashed repeatedly with Harper and quit suddenly. 

Another thanks to Cathie :

John Reid, Information Commissioner, refused extension to follow up on recommendations by Gomery, faced lies in court he was abusing his powers

More from Beijing York: 

Deanna Allen , VP Canadian Wheat Board, fired by Harper appointee Arason following Measner's firing.


Andrew Okulitch, scientist with the Geological Survey (although he was eventually re-instated... back in the day that Harper was pretending to be moderate), for lampooning an order to call Stephen Harper's Tory government "Canada's new government'' is back on the job.

Has the big beast had enough?

 Why do these lines of Yeats come to me now?

The darkness drops again; but now I know
That twenty centuries of stony sleep were vexed to nightmare by a rocking cradle,
And what rough beast, its hour come round at last,
Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?

When John Baird made an announcement that really should have been made by the President of the Treasury Board, Stock Day, and when that announcement is such a blatant lie contradicting what Day has been saying, you need to ask why, and why now.

“We won’t see the massive cuts to the public service that happened under the last Liberal government,” said Baird. “I don’t envisage anything like that.”...As an example (of how important public servants are), he cited the 300 public servants who work at his former ministry, Infrastructure Canada. “We could not have done the economic action plan without them. They delivered it.”    

Sure.  Baird valued public servants so much when he was head of Infrastructure that he short staffed them while drastically increasing the workload.  They were then blamed for the slow process of loosening up stimulus funds.

The government body that oversees $38 billion in federal infrastructure spending has had its knuckles rapped for being poorly staffed and hiring unqualified employees.  Infrastructure Canada has had either no human resource plan or insufficient plans in the three years audited since the Conservatives came to power, said the report.  "The department has faced and continues to face a significant shortfall of staff," said the audit.

"My understanding of last year is they didn't add a single staff, net," said Kennedy.  "That is a recipe for bad performance. It's also a recipe for political interference. Shortcuts are taken when people aren't there and when people aren't trained."

Baird now claims there will be no cuts to departmental budgets, and spending will increase for defence, airport security, and law and order.  This certainly hasn’t been the case so far under Harper.


Although Demers (PIPS) says politically-driven public service cuts have been going on for many years, the process has accelerated under the Harper Conservatives. The 2007 federal budget mandated across-the-board savings of five percent in every government department.

Nor has the guy who actually is supposed to decide what to cut in the public service sent the same message.

Just days into his new job, Day cut 245 positions from government boards and agencies, principally related to the arts.  On the day he was appointed, he boasted of being the new Dr. No and warned of cuts to come.  The words of CON liars aside, logic tells us the public service has been, and will continue to be under attack.

Since the government has already promised that funding transfers to the provinces are safe and ruled out tax hikes, that leaves government programs as the obvious target to curb spending.

...Day earned a reputation as a zealous cost-cutter when as Alberta labour minister he was caught in a furor over hospital staffing when then-premier Ralph Klein's government attempted to chop public-sector wages. As a candidate for Canadian Alliance leader, he advocated cutting funding for departments like Health Canada.

So why send Baird out to lie on behalf of Day?  Day’s bragging of cuts is too recent for him to do a flip-flop, and he has reduced his feeble credibility to the negative zone over his non-existent criminal comments.

That still leaves us to wonder why Baird was sent by the master to make any comment on this at all.

The rough beast, perhaps, has been vexed to nightmare and is waking up.  Public servants are generally passive, grumbling from time to time about the little things, putting up with the partisan nature of their Ministers, adjusting after each election.  But push them too hard, from too many directions, and they will kick up more than a fuss.

In the past year, Flaherty has openly stated that their pensions and benefits are very generous and considering the context, there is little doubt these will be under attack.  Public servants are being forced to violate their own commitment to non-partisan service through pressure and instruments such as MEPs.  They are being muzzled.  They are being used as scapegoats while the political bosses who forced them despite their best advice walk away unscathed.    The list of public servants served up as fodder simply because they were doing their job and doing it well is lengthy.

Then, Colvin came along.  The moment I saw him on video, I knew he would be a catalyst for change.  Linda Keen was admirable, but so wonderfully tough she was viewed by some as abrasive.  Not so with Colvin.  He clearly didn’t want to be in front of cameras, he was obviously pained by the whole process, and he came across as very sincere.  His actions cost him.  Seeing Colvin take a beating day after day without quitting on his role as a public servant was not only inspiring to public servants, it also tweaked a little guilt each time their political bosses asked them to cross a line.

Then, along come Munir Sheikh.  Well, well, well.  Resign a gem of a job on principle.  A principle held dear by any decent public servant.

Public servants have to be wondering who is next, and what will be asked of them by this government.   They have to be waking up to the reality that they are nothing but a resource to be kicked around by this government, then tossed aside for political reasons.

Bad enough if your pay, pension, and benefits are threatened.  But when you are asked to toss aside your integrity by someone who doesn’t even give a damn about you, when you are used as the kicking boy, then you cannot go home each night feeling good about that eight or so hours of your life, day after day.

I’m guessing there are rumbling coming from the beast that is the public service, and Harper is realizing that this particular beast need only roll over to crush him.  Public servants have learned under this government the importance of saving e-mails and memos.

Harper can’t get rid of all public servants

He needs a few to kick around and blame shit on.

I’m not a big believer in coincidence when it comes to who is writing about what and when where politics are concerned.  Today, the Ottawa Citizen printed and article by print media’s very own Lowell Green, Kelly Egan. 

Egan valiantly takes it upon himself to inform us that “(we) have no idea how bad it is”… “(d)ealing with the federal government in this town (Ottawa).”  It is so bad, he says, that “(s)ome days, honestly, you just want to scream.”  He supports this claim with plenty of useful and reliable evidence in the form of anecdotes. 

One of the most vital functions for any government department is to be the organized gatekeeper for the flow of information. In this town, there are literally hundreds of people who do nothing but this one thing all day.  Why must it be such a battle?

Why?  Well, Egan, you dishonest Harper bag boy, left me tell you why.

An investigation by The Canadian Press revealed in June that MEPs are being used across the federal government to literally script words uttered by cabinet ministers and lowly backbenchers as well as screen media requests for interviews with public servants who have expert knowledge of government policy.
The tools — aimed at yielding a desired headline or soundbite from a public event — allow Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s Office, through its bureaucratic arm at the Privy Council Office, to stay on message while controlling access to politicians and public servants. They've been used to plan the details of everything from answers for a journalism student seeking information about aid programming to a conference on helping save the polar bear.

Critics say MEPs undermine democracy and transparency because they allow the government to micromanage its message while blurring the time-honoured separation of non-partisan public servants and their political masters.

But you already knew this, didn’t you, Kelly?  This is not news, nor is it speculation.  MEPs control all public messages, and Ministers, as we have seen recently, can and do override departmental policies on information release.

For Pete's sake, the way they treat you, as though guarding information is Job One, not releasing it. What are they so afraid of? Where is their commitment to public discourse?

The commitment is there, Egan, but unfortunately harper has duct-taped it into silence.

What is evident -- and most dangerous -- is the brick wall that has been erected between the public service and the public via the media conduit.  Can you think of one prominent federal public servant who is regularly quoted in the nation's newspapers?   We have 140,000 PS workers in this town and one sealed lip. Amazing.

Egan does what dishonest, partisan neander-hacks do: he blends some truth with blatant omissions, producing an overall lie.

Yes, there is a brick wall, and yes, it is very, very dangerous, and yes, the media isn’t getting the message from the public service.  What Egan doesn’t bother saying, and what I maintain he deliberately misguides readers on, is that the brick wall has been erected by various elected governments, and the bulk of that wall was built by harper who introduced MEPs and is widely known by anyone who isn’t a complete moron as a message control freak of galactic proportions.

So why does Egan pick today to whine about public servants and how they just want to make him scream when it comes to obtaining information from them?  Well, Egan manages to use an anecdote about Stats Can as useful and reliable evidence of how badly public servants suck at communicating info to the public.  Yeah, Stats Can of the long form census.  That very same entity of misinformation gathered through threats and intimidation at 10 pm at night, on your very doorstep.  Bastards!

This bit of news made papers today as well:

Nationwide focus groups assembled by a federal pollster expressed "frustration" over the Harper government's lack of communication, leaving them in the dark about the Tory agenda.

Other articles (presumably not written by dishonest Harper bag boys) actually explain why the flow of info has stalled, linking much of it to Harper’s MEPs.  Even Doris admits to his party’s use of duct tape as a promotional tool:

Treasury Board President Stockwell Day said he'd consider removing the veritable gag on federal public servants that's been in place since the Conservatives introduced a potent messaging tool called the Message Event Proposal four years ago.

Dan Garner writes an entertaining piece with a serious message illustrating the absolute lack of respect the Harper government has for conveying truth. 

A slim majority of Conservative party members believe homosexuals should be arrested and imprisoned in federal dinner theatres, where they would perform The Sound of Music and other wholesome entertainment for children and seniors. Twenty per cent of the Conservative caucus dropped acid with the Grateful Dead. At least three cabinet ministers have outstanding arrest warrants in Nepal; one is a former member of the Manson family.

In the past, I would not have presented these claims as facts because they're not "true," in the narrow sense of an assertion supported by logic and evidence. That stuff mattered to me. I was a "member of the reality-based community," as a Bush administration official famously said about people who "believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality."

But no more. "When we act," that official said, "we create our own reality." That's where I am now. Stephen Harper, the Conservative government, and me. Creating our own reality. And dropping acid with the Dead.

While Gardner’s article is primarily about the distortion of truth as Harper massages the message, it is yet another study of how real information is kept from the public while providing the illusion that valuable communication is occurring.

The astonishing rhetorical genius Doris affirms this (unintentionally, of course):


"When I say that our tax plan is regarded as the most competitive in the G7 countries and I ask people that, hardly any of them are aware," Day said.  "Those are called talking points and we believe they’re important…We send that stuff out all the time whether it’s talking points, speeches, whatever, we’re communicating it daily.”

No amount of letter writing to MPs will change harper’s demolition of information channels, because when the ideology that you are trying to force on an entire nation is so narrow that it only appeals only to a small percentage of the population (the 30% does not apply here because I am talking about the real, hardcore narrow ideology that would send most conservative supporters running en masse for protest sings), then truth and reality are not animals you want roaming free.  Gotta club those babies.  Lobotomize them.  Do some corrective surgery.

… Facts, evidence, logic. Irony. We're moved beyond that. I might even say we've evolved, but some of the guys in the purple van might not like that. So let's just say we've opened the doors of perception. We make reality, man.

And hacks like Egan are more than happy to type up Stevie’s latest versions.  So if we can’t get harper & co. to tell the truth because the truth is their enemy, and if we can’t get brown nosers like Egan to print the truth, we are left with one thing:  vote the mother-fuckers out of office.  Now.  Hammer away at the opposition parties, insist they grow a decent set of balls, vote the CONs out next possible chance, hold a damn election, and vote strategically.  (go see ACR)

Who should the public service bureaucrats be loyal to?

Not, as James Travers says, the government of the day.

Perhaps it is simply imprecise word choice on his part, or lack of expanding on his statement, but these lines do not help people understand the non-partisan nature of the public service, nor why it is necessary to respect that the public service serves the public, not the elected government:

Certainly the government of the day has every right to expect bureaucrat loyalty.

No, it doesn’t. While it is the duty of the public service to forward government’s will as directed by the Minister in charge (with the exception of the independent agencies who do not have a Minsiter), it is not a question of loyalty. They serve Canada and Canadians, and must fulfill the elected government’s orders within the boundaries of their mandates and as directed by existing legislation which defines the responsibilities of an independent public service.

It would be more accurate to say that the government of the day has every right to expect bureaucrat cooperation and respect for the acts outlining the responsibilities of public servants.

For the public service, it is not at all (and should never be) an issue of loyalty, but of a committment and dedication to following the rules by which they are bound, regardless of who holds the most seats in Parliament. These rules and acts were developed by all of Parliament, over many, many sessions. They are regularly updated and adjusted as public needs change. Never should they be altered to accommodate the goals of a particular party in power.

If the public service was expected to shift loyalties to accommodate elected governments, there would be no stability in the public service and long term planning would be a waste of time.

Travers is also incorrect in what he says about the rights of Prime Ministers when it comes to public servants:

Prime ministers have as much right to set their administration's tone as they have to expect the bureaucracy to execute government's will.

The statement is a little vague, saying that one right is equal to the other, without really defining the range of those rights, but implying that they are considerable.

Yes, the Prime Minister does have some leeway in setting the tone in departments, but once more, existing policies limit that right to safeguard against any PM using public services to forward their own political agendas. We have already seen many cases of abuse of such policies, especially with the harper government - using public service sites to launch attack ads, changing the look of departmental sites so that they appear clones of the CPC ones, ignoring Treasury Board guidelines and introducing terms such as Harper’s Government rather than the Government of Canada.

After all, democracy demands that mandarins advise, ministers decide. Still, enforced silence and reflex compliance are anathemas to the openness and intellectual argy-bargy that are essential to the creation of effective policies that put the nation on the most beneficial course.

Yes. Travers is correct on that point. And by clouding the accountability and the independence of the public service by saying the government of the day has every right to expect (its) loyalty, Travers feeds the very thing he decries: enforced silence and reflex compliance would be the result of loyalty to governments of the day.

Maybe a public servant living in that other Canada wrote this.

You know, the Canada Harper says is better now than four years ago?

“The Prime Minister’s action has not only brought additional talent and expertise to the Senate; it has greatly strengthened our efforts to move forward on our tackling-crime agenda.”

“The opposition has obstructed that agenda in the Senate, most notably by gutting Bill C-15 – a bill proposing mandatory jail time for serious drug offences, and a key part of the government’s efforts to fight organized crime.”
“These five new Senators support all our measures,” said Minister Paradis. “And today, we ask the opposition parties to listen to the victims of crime and to support our measures, too.”

That is part of what appears on Justice Canada’s site.

Like all federal departments and agencies staffed by public servants, the website is supposed to be non-partisan.  At all times.

This is important, because if an elected government is allowed to use it to push its ideology, promote its agenda, or attack the opposition, there is a clear conflict of interest and the very real possibility of presenting biassed information.

Nor should tax payer funded sites such as these be used to promote the interests or attack ads of any one party.

This time, all of us tax payers have paid for this partisan attack ad posted by the Conservatives.  Tolerate this, and next year, we could all be paying for similar ads for the Liberal party.  No elected government can be allowed to manipulate public service websites, or those sites become nothing more than political propaganda.  Useless as a source of information to the public.

Public servants, especially those working in communications, understand this.  That is why it is near to impossible that a public servant wrote that conservative message with the intentions of posting it on Justice Canada’s site.

Furthermore, since the statement made on that site is not accurate considering the Conservatives themselves have delayed and even killed their own crime bills, it is even less believable that a public servant wrote it.  That communications person would have done their research, aimed for accuracy, knowing full well that their words will be closely reviewed and edited by several managers.

With several levels of public service managers reviewing the message, errors would have been caught and it is impossible that the partisan nature of the message would not have been caught and addressed.  Unless the message came from the top.  The political top.

"This is a concerted effort on the part of this government to politicize the public service," said Liberal MP Marlene Jennings. "This is not the first time, it is reprehensible and it has to stop." Jennings lodged her complaint with Privy Council Clerk Wayne Wouters over a press release posted on the Justice Department's website

...She wants it removed and Wouters to investigate whether public servants wrote, approved and posted it, or if it was prepared by political staff and posted under their orders. She also wants to know if any bureaucrats objected.

An investigation sounds appropriate.  But with attack after attack on public servants who have been brutalized for trying to do their jobs, will any come forth?  I hope so, but then it’s easy for me to say since I’m not the one risking my job.

More public servants are coming forth, but with the threat of cutbacks in the public service, and a scarcety of jobs in the private sector, they take a great risk in offending their political Minister.

This is why I keep saying we need to support our public servants when they stand up against those who would rather they remain silent.

They work for us.  We should help them do so without threats or harassment.

Proroguing access to information

Though little known to ordinary Canadians, the information commissioner is considered an essential player in ensuring accountable, transparent democracy.

You would think that a government that made transparency and accountability the focus of their election in ‘06 would make sure we have a good commissioner in place.

Not so.

The federal office charged with prying the lid off government secrecy has been without a permanent leader since June and is unlikely to get one for several more months.  Critics argue the failure to swiftly replace this key watchdog is part of a pattern by Stephen Harper’s government of cloaking information from the public.

Understanding the role of the Commissioner explains why Steve would really rather not have one.  They kind of get in the way, like having a sitting Parliament does.  Two birds with one stone for Harper, here.  The appointment of the information commissioner has to be approved by the House and Senate, but since Stevo prorogued Parliament, this can't happen until March.  Then of course, there will simply be too much to do.

The lack of a permanent leader is “particularly troubling because of all the officers of Parliament, it is the access to information commissioner that has been most concerned about the performance of government vis a vis accountability and compliance with the law,” said Liberal MP Paul Szabo, former chairman of the Commons committee on access to information, privacy and ethics.

On Saturday, all across Canada, Canadians held rallies to protest prorogation and the general undermining of democracy this government is engineering.  This is yet another instance of Harper’s systematic attack on democracy. 

Col. Michel Drapeau, a lawyer with expertise in access to information, said he found the federal government’s delay in naming a permanent commissioner “disturbing.”  The government, he said, has not only hesitated to name a permanent information watchdog, but has also not replaced other key commissioners, such as the chair of the military police complaints commission. It only recently named an interim RCMP complaints commissioner.

“They all, in their own way, serve to enhance democracy and permit checks and balances within our system of government,” Drapeau said.

Several of us have been saying that for years.  The public service needs to be protected from Harper’s attacks.  Keen, Measner, Tinsley...getting rid of accountability and destroying democracy by slashing one public servant at a time.

You think "Canadians Against Proroguing Parliament" is rousing the public?

"nothing would galvanize even the most apathetic public servant like touching their pension"

No kidding.

Journalist Kathryn May explains why decent pensions were granted to public servants:

Secure and generous pensions were historically considered key to protecting the public service from corruption. Also, many public servants aren't as free as private sector workers to invest in the market because of potential conflicts of interest on policy issues they are working on.

Not only are public servants barred from certain investments, there are many other things they are barred from unless they take a leave of absence since such actions would constitute a conflict of interest, or violate policies they are subject to.

Furthermore, some of these people have been paying into these pensions for close to 25-30 years, planning for their retirement responsibly under a signed agreement they went into when they accepted their position.  I'd be pissed if my employer decided to welsh on that agreement after all those years.

And the pathetic reason Harper & Co. offer?  Many people in the private sector have crappy retirement plans.

So rather than put through measures to secure decent pensions for all working Canadians, they want to lower the bar for everyone - except themselves, that is.

Well...I've been saying that if the government squeezes public servants too hard, especially while kicking them in the face, serving them up as scapegoats, bashing them in committees, firing them for doing their jobs, they will start pushing back.

But union leaders say the government should be prepared for an all-out war with its employees if it tampers with their defined benefit pension plan or tries to convert it to a defined contribution plan as has happened in Britain.  

Them's fightin' woyds.

And it isn't just talk -

Canada's 18 federal unions are meeting in Ottawa for two days starting today to develop a united front against what they believe is the Harper government's gathering assault on the public service.



"When you attack people's retirement savings, you are asking for the fight of your life and I think it would be a most unwise thing for any political party to do. And if they did it to public servants, they would have to do it to the military and RCMP, and do they really want to annoy them?" said (Ron Cochrane, co-chair of the National Joint Council).

If Harper and Flaherty want to stick with that "public servants' generous pensions" line and how it's unfair considering the private sector generally doesn't have such security, they'll have trouble with this -

And the unions will be the first to pounce on MPs, judges and deputy ministers whose pensions are even richer than those of the rest of the public service.

With roughly 450,000 federal public servants, they and their families can create quite a painful pouncing.

 

The Post committing to eroding accountability

In the Financial Post, Dan Kelly writes about one of the “hidden burdens” of the business community.

Next week, the Canadian Federation of Independent Business (CFIB) will launch the first ever Red Tape Awareness Week, with the support of the Financial Post.  The goal is to raise the awareness of this largely hidden problem for Canadian businesses, the millions of Canadians such businesses employ and the contribution they make to the economy.

Bull-shit.

First of all, Dan Kelly  is senior vice-president of legislative affairs for the Canadian Federation of Independent Business which lobbies the federal, provincial, and municipal governments on behalf of its members.  So Kelly is using the Post for free, biassed promo and to gather stats which we can see will falsely represent the role “red tape,” or checks and measures plays in regulating what businesses can and should do, since Kelly’s request for info is solely for negative examples.

Examples can be powerful in making the case for action to political leaders.

Right.  So Kelly encourages business owners, civil servants, and the public to send their horror stories to the Post so that CFIB can release their biassed report and influence politicians into making businesses do away with that whole, troublesome accountability thing.  And here's the type of dishonesty we can expect from the report:

In 2005, CFIB released a landmark report on the subject of regulation and paper burden in Canada. The report, Rated "R": Prosperity Restricted by Red Tape revealed the cost of regulation to Canada's business community at more than $30-billion a year.

So what?  Meaningless number meant to shock us without telling us anything about how those funds are used.  Can anyone seriously argue in favour of complete de-regulation or claim that there is no benefit to the public to have some regulation?

In addition to trying to pave the way to reduce accountability for businesses, Kelly's failure at subtlety flags another part of the agenda:

Behind every government form is a civil servant whose job it is to request it, receive it and do something with it. While completing the paperwork is no picnic for business owners, I'm guessing it isn't much fun for government employees either.

“Do something with it...”  As though such procedures are so ridiculously unnecessary that they can be tossed into the realm of those things so inconsequential that they do not even have a name or definition.  That “something” is making sure the project or contract requested does not violate numerous laws set in place to protect the public, be it financial, for health and safety, fairness, transparency...

Nice little effort at trying to hypocritically say this is partially for the benefit of those poor, overworked public servants as well.  Sure, when the study is used to justify cutting public service jobs, I’m sure public servants who are suddenly jobless will be very grateful they no longer have to do such tedious shit as making sure businesses are accountable.

Colvin's letter: public service

Several people have covered Colvin’s letter, Further Evidence of Richard Colvin to the Special Committee on Afghanistan.  Off the top of my head, here are a couple of good posts, dealing with specific points that support Colvin’s credibility - here  and here.   

I want to comment on his closing statements:

I am not a whistleblower. Rather, I am a loyal servant of the Crown who did his job in Afghanistan to he best of his abilities, working through internal and authorized channels.
...Contrary to Minister Cannon’s suggestion, I testified in Parliament because I was summoned by the Committee and legally compelled to speak the truth. I feel it is my duty as a public servant, when commanded to appear before the Parliamentary Committee, to give evidence that is full, frank and fair. I feel duty bound to be frank and thorough in responding to the Committee’s inquiries.

Colvin is a public servant of the highest quality and he clearly defines what it means to act in that capacity.

It is not always an easy job.  Many public servants face what Colvin did: serving the public with honesty and integrity, not backing off despite the knowledge that doing your job properly can bring you major grief from some of your supervisors, or from the government, or both.

They also know they will likely be harassed and attacked by members of the public should their actions negatively affect the political party those members worship.  And I do mean worship, because there is little effort at understanding that the public servant was doing their best for Canada and Canadians.

You don”t need to carry a gun to serve your country, and you don’t need to be on a battlefield to be subject to attacks.

We are familiar by now with the on-going attacks from the government and even other public servants.  Here is a sample of some of the public’s attacks (complete with spelling errors), via the comment section in this article -  

The old must be a Liberal assumption:

 FearlessCrusade - It appears likely that this man is a Liberal mole trying to cause problems for the Conservatives. My suggestion to him is to "Let it Go".

Threats and death wishes:

 Austrian - Colvin will be rewarded by the same way like other thoughtless trators.

 ruthanddave  - colvin should be tried for treason! If he had been captured by the taliban how would he be treated? Must be a liberal for sure.

 Gerrypolitical  - Colvin should join the witness protection program (in the States) and disappear

There was one that said: We used to hang people like Colvin.  Maybe we should start to again.  It appears to have been removed, though.

The ridiculous distortion of information and mind boggling stretch in a bid to assassinate character:

koconnor100  - In 2002, he moved to Ramallah in the Palestinian territories, where he served as head of a new political mission in the wake of Yasser Arafat's death. His marriage failed, and he returned to Canada in 2005, moving to Calgary. During a vacation in Whistler he was offered a job in Afghanistan [5]. --- --- ---- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Colvin_%28diplomat%29 ---

Oh this guy is hardly a disinterested observer. He lived in Palestine for 3 years ? And the palistinians love him , they offered him a job.

Bull shit, of course.  The Crown offered him a position, just like the CONs did.

We can’t afford to have public servants like Keene and Colvin be bullied into silence.  This is why I harp on and on about the public service and the importance of keeping it independent from the elected government.  We can’t afford to have serious issues hidden.  How can we take charge of our own lives if being denied information, we cannot act on our own behalf or vote in an informed fashion?

The vast majority of comments (despite the obvious cut and paste jobs by neanders - compare the comment section in Kady O’s post to the CBC one) were very supportive of Colvin.  Here is my favourite positive comment:

 socialjusticequest  - Until now I disliked government civil servants. With your courage and professionalism, Mr. Colvin, I have changed my view now and acknowledge my own bias. You are a professional with integrity and I salute your efforts for revealing the truth. To know that someone like you serves as a civil servant, makes me a proud Canadian.

We need to give more of this support and encouragement to our public servants.  It not only helps to affirm they are performing a valuable service, it also lets our politicians know that we aren’t going to sit back and allow them to be undermined.

We have a responsibility as citizens to make our democracy work.  Applying pressure on our politicians forcing them to follow legislation, to be open and transparent, to respect the actions of agents working on our behalf - that’s showing love for your country.