RCMP Arrest Environment Canada employee

[jdobbin]

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/070509/...een_plan_arrest

The arrest of an Environment Canada employee for allegedly leaking the government's environmental plan should serve as a warning to other bureaucrats, says a Conservative cabinet minister.

The employee was arrested Wednesday for allegedly divulging details of a draft version of the Tory government's regulatory framework for climate change. The unidentified man was led away in handcuffs early Tuesday from his office as co-workers looked on.

The arrest is a signal to other government employees that future leaks of information won't be tolerated, suggests Environment Minister John Baird.

"I think we signal that the code of values and ethics in the public service are important," said Baird.

Didn't the Tories once call these people "whistle blowers" when they revealed information on the Liberal government?

[normanchateau]

Reminds me of another interesting interaction between the Conservative Environment Minister and an employee of Environment Canada more than a year ago:

http://www.cbc.ca/arts/story/2006/04/13/ambrose-climate.html

Harper sure knows how to pick them. O'Connor, Ambrose, Fortier...

[Michael Bluth]

Didn't the Tories once call these people "whistle blowers" when they revealed information on the Liberal government?

Whistle blowing involves revealing illegal activities.

Why should stealing a Government plan and releasing it early be protected by the Government?

Just goes to show that Harper wasn't wrong in saying there is no such thing as a true Conservative majority because of the leanings of certain members of the civil service.

[normanchateau]

Just goes to show that Harper wasn't wrong in saying there is no such thing as a true Conservative majority because of the leanings of certain members of the civil service.

Yes, it's most important that all members of the civil service be card carrying Conservatives.

Better still, why not have them all be social conservatives so that Harper would know that they vote like him and think like him.

[jdobbin]

Yes, it's most important that all members of the civil service be card carrying Conservatives.

Better still, why not have them all be social conservatives so that Harper would know that they vote like him and think like him.

Think that might be part of the plan: to make sure all civil service, RCMP and Supreme Court are card carrying Tory members so that it brings fair and balance to Canada?

[Wilber]

Just goes to show that Harper wasn't wrong in saying there is no such thing as a true Conservative majority because of the leanings of certain members of the civil service.

Yes, it's most important that all members of the civil service be card carrying Conservatives.

Better still, why not have them all be social conservatives so that Harper would know that they vote like him and think like him.

It's important for civil servants to remember who they answer to and that is the elected government of the country. Releasing government policy is not at the discretion of the civil service. Releasing a company policy before your superiors give the go ahead would easily get you fired in the real world. It should in government as well. Any government. Illegal activities excluded of course.

[capricorn]

Didn't the Tories once call these people "whistle blowers" when they revealed information on the Liberal government?

Whistle blowing involves revealing illegal activities.

Sometimes illegal activities are inadvertent. They are the result of good old incompetence. There's much of it in our esteemed federal bureaucracy, especially in the higher echelons.

[Michael Bluth]

Yes, it's most important that all members of the civil service be card carrying Conservatives.

Better still, why not have them all be social conservatives so that Harper would know that they vote like him and think like him.

No need for anything that drastic. That's just *scary* *scary* *scary*.

Stealing the draft plan and releasing it to the media was criminal behaviour. Period end of sentence.

At times you have a point in your criticisms.

Not in this case. Why fault the Government for prosecuting criminal activity?

[geoffrey]

Good job on the RCMP. You can't compared this Environment Canada (Liberal) hack to the likes of Allan Cutler. Cutler revealed a deliberate fraud by the liberals to steal taxpayer money... this EC employee just is some hack promoting a partisan agenda.

I can't even believe people would criticise this person being arrested, or compare them to those that blew the whistle on sponsorship and the rest.

[guyser]

First, anyone who discloses info and is unauthorized to do so should be called on it. But that is politics and it is done over and over again, including and not limited to Steve and his gang.

No need for anything that drastic. That's just *scary* *scary* *scary*.

Stealing the draft plan and releasing it to the media was criminal behaviour. Period end of sentence.

Not sure about "criminal", he was not charged.

Not in this case. Why fault the Government for prosecuting criminal activity?

Why not? They are merely being selective in who they do it to. Pretty funny really , but hey wouldnt expect some to reason that way.

From the article

"They leaked the budget onto the front pages of a national newspaper some months ago and there was no worry or concern at all from the government," said Cullen.

"But when it comes to the environment, they're slapping Environment Canada people in handcuffs."

Uh oh

[geoffrey]

Don't break the law and you'll have no problem. What is so hard to understand, this person stole something that wasn't theirs and distributed it without permission? They got caught.

[Michael Bluth]

Why not? They are merely being selective in who they do it to. Pretty funny really , but hey wouldnt expect some to reason that way.

From the article

"They leaked the budget onto the front pages of a national newspaper some months ago and there was no worry or concern at all from the government," said Cullen.

"But when it comes to the environment, they're slapping Environment Canada people in handcuffs."

Uh oh

Do you have proof of other civil service employees releasing classified information to the media? (Call crime stoppers if you do.)

Or are you just going on the word of Nathan Cullen?

[guyser]

Do you have proof of other civil service employees releasing classified information to the media? (Call crime stoppers if you do.)

Or are you just going on the word of Nathan Cullen?

No I dont. No I am not.

But I would like to hear your reasoning why this time its bad and last time it wasnt. And hopefully I wont just get the mb mantra "Liberals were worse"

[Michael Bluth]

But I would like to hear your reasoning why this time its bad and last time it wasnt. And hopefully I wont just get the mb mantra "Liberals were worse"

If these supposed budget leaks were from civil service employees it was equally as bad.

The civil service should not be taking part in partisan activities of any kind. The code of conduct for civil service employees calls for them to serve the Government of the day. Releasing the details of the environmental plans was clearly partisan in nature.

If these supposed budget leaks came from political staffers that is totally different. Political staffers jobs, are by nature, partisan.

Political staffers don't have the job protections that civil service employees have. Nor are they expected to adhere to the same code of conduct.

How's about that reasoning?

[guyser]

Not bad.

[M.Dancer]

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/070509/...een_plan_arrest

The arrest of an Environment Canada employee for allegedly leaking the government's environmental plan should serve as a warning to other bureaucrats, says a Conservative cabinet minister./quote]

Didn't the Tories once call these people "whistle blowers" when they revealed information on the Liberal government?

If it was bureaucratic mishaps or wrong doings, it would be whistle blowing, but as it was leglislation that had not been tabled, it's criminal. As one poster here correctly said, legislation like this could be used by unscuplious insiders to get a leg up in the markets.

[Argus]

Whistle blowing is revealing information that had been kept secret about wrongdoing, illegal activity, or something harmful to the public good that the whistle-blower feels they should know about. This was not what happened here.

A contract employee (ie, NOT a civil servant) deliberately gathered up, and released information early in a deliberate effort to sabotage the government's impending release strategy and publicity. There is no question it was deliberate as the leak was accompanied by criticism of the new policy which bears a striking resemblance to what one would hear from the more trendy environmentalist set.

I don't now that the arrest wasn't over the top, but the employee is gone, his contract terminated. More importantly for him, I suspect, he will lose his security clearance, which means he has no hope of ever working in any capacity for the government again, or any organization which works closely with the government (which in this town is almost all of them). I'm sure he'll be celebrated and congratulated by the other trendy environmental types, then be forgotten and wind up in Alberta working for an oil company because he can't find work here any more.

[speaker]

In what way is revealing information about environmental malpractise any less benevolent to the public good than any other kind of wrong-doing. For example, if a bureaucrat in agriculture found that government was introducing legistation making an environment harming chemical available for public use based on bad information or simple bad intent, that would be whistleblowing.

If an employee recognizes an attempt to avoid action on a serious environmental issue and puts that before the public it is no different than an employee who sees fraud and coverup in a money issue. Private company employees have the same ability, unfortunately not enough of them have the foresight to understand right from wrong.

[M.Dancer]

In what way is revealing information about environmental malpractise any less benevolent to the public good than any other kind of wrong-doing. For example, if a bureaucrat in agriculture found that government was introducing legistation making an environment harming chemical available for public use based on bad information or simple bad intent, that would be whistleblowing.

If an employee recognizes an attempt to avoid action on a serious environmental issue and puts that before the public it is no different than an employee who sees fraud and coverup in a money issue. Private company employees have the same ability, unfortunately not enough of them have the foresight to understand right from wrong.

The employee is circumventing the role of parliament. It was legislation that hadn't been tabled, there is the opposition to do that, you know, elected members.

More likey someone would go over it to see what area would be targetted and go short on those industries anndmake some $$$

[August1991]

There is so much wrong with this case that I don't know where to begin.

Let's start with the fact that this "employee" has not been charged with anything. Do the RCMP really have the right person? (Many people presumably had access to the document.)

By all reports, the guy was taken out of the office in handcuffs. IOW, this was a show of force to scare other employees. They just needed a sacrificial lamb. Anyone would do.

Other here have noted the lack of distinction between "whistle-blowing" and "illegal leaking". I have never liked whistle-blowing legislation for this reason. Where do we draw the line? For many, it would not be wrong to leak information about the Iraq war. Many thought that Daniel Elsberg and Mark Felt were legitimate whistle-blowers.

Argus then raises the wonderfully delightful (and arcane bureaucratic) distinction between a "civil servant" and a "contract employee". Argus also notes that this guy will lose his security clearance, making future employment with the federal government impossible.

IOW, this guy has been charged and found guilty already. There's a mark on his personnel file.

----

IMV, this case shows everything that is wrong with government. In its small way, it's similar to the kind of horrific nonsense in the 1930s Soviet Union.

Government is too big and there are too many government employees. The employees try do too many things. They are badly managed. They are incompetent.

The bureaucratic response to this is to create security classifications, levels of secrecy and then create whistle-blower and simultaneously anti-leaking legislation. None of this will work.

I would expect that in the future, there will be even more so-called leaks from bureaucrats and even more draconian responses from senior managers and politicians. Like in the Soviet Union, there will be show trials to make an example of disloyalty.

Sorry for the theoretical rant but we haven't figured out how to make government work. This case is an example.

Whistle blowing is revealing information that had been kept secret about wrongdoing, illegal activity, or something harmful to the public good that the whistle-blower feels they should know about. This was not what happened here.

Who defines the "public good"? According to that definition, Mark Felt and Daniel Elsberg should have gone to jail since presumably it is up to elected officials to decide the public good.

[Argus]

In what way is revealing information about environmental malpractise any less benevolent to the public good than any other kind of wrong-doing. For example, if a bureaucrat in agriculture found that government was introducing legistation making an environment harming chemical available for public use based on bad information or simple bad intent, that would be whistleblowing.

The employee revealed nothing that was not set to be released by the government in a few days. The employee released the information with the sole purpose of using the access his job provided to oppose the government in a political fashion. Anyone who sets out to cause damage to the reputation or interests or plans of the those who run an organization which employs them should expect to be fired, at the very least.

As to whistle-blowing, An employee of Ford who releases secret information about new cars which details their safety failings is whistle blowing. An employee who releases drawings and pictures of the new cars two days before the big unveiling, along with a commentary about how ugly they are and how they'll never sell well is just trying to cause trouble.

[Argus]

There is so much wrong with this case that I don't know where to begin.

Let's start with the fact that this "employee" has not been charged with anything. Do the RCMP really have the right person? (Many people presumably had access to the document.)

By all reports, the guy was taken out of the office in handcuffs. IOW, this was a show of force to scare other employees. They just needed a sacrificial lamb. Anyone would do.

We are operating under the presumption they had actual evidence or would not have taken the legal risk of having him arrested - nor, presumably, would the RCMP have taken him away. It remains to be seen whether he will or will not be charged. As to the handcuffs - unneccessary, in my opinion, but we don't know if he refused to come, and don't know if they had a policy about handcuffing all those who are taken in. I'm willing to wait and see on that.

Other here have noted the lack of distinction between "whistle-blowing" and "illegal leaking".

The distinction is fairly clear, and dependant upon the public interest and value of what was released, and the harm or potential harm which the leaker hoped to avert by leaking that information. This was very clearly not a case of whistle-blowing.

Argus then raises the wonderfully delightful (and arcane bureaucratic) distinction between a "civil servant" and a "contract employee".

There is nothing arcane about it. Public servants are directly employed by the government. Contractors are either private consultants working on contract, or temporary workers working through a private sector company; anything from computer people to clerks to management consultants.

Government is too big and there are too many government employees. The employees try do too many things. They are badly managed. They are incompetent.

There certainly are incompetent civil servants as there are incompetent railway workers, incompetent lawyers, incompetent auto workers and incompetent fry cooks. Perhaps the fact the primary requirement of so many public employees is that they be able to speak French adds to the degree of incompetence in the organization generally, but otherwise I'd imagine they are not much different than employees anywhere else.

Sorry for the theoretical rant but we haven't figured out how to make government work. This case is an example.

The only thing this is an example of is the arrogance of some left wing eco type who thought that his opinion was more important than the government's and decided to use his job working for the government to fight the government that employed him. Stupid thing to do. Have a fun time on the pogey line.

[noahbody]

quote]

Didn't the Tories once call these people "whistle blowers" when they revealed information on the Liberal government?

After retirement, Jean Chretien spent a great deal of time on political forums, using the name jdobbin. Now you know the rest of the story. I'm Paul Harvey.

[normanchateau]

Yes, it's most important that all members of the civil service be card carrying Conservatives.

Better still, why not have them all be social conservatives so that Harper would know that they vote like him and think like him.

No need for anything that drastic. That's just *scary* *scary* *scary*.

So is this:

http://www.cbc.ca/arts/story/2006/04/13/ambrose-climate.html

[August1991]

In Argusworld, the colours of the rainbow become black & white - or is that pink & white?

The RCMP never make mistakes and always operate as an objective, independent organization above political influence.

Civil servants are beyond reproach unlike those untrustworthy contractual employees whose only allegiance is to some dodgy temporary services company.

Incompetence is a fact of life and there is just as much incompetence in government circles as in any other.

And if we didn't have these leftist eco wingnuts, the world would be a better place.

There is a small glimmer of colour in Argusworld however. The distinction between whistle-blowing and illegal leaking is "fairly" obvious.

Fairly obvious? You meant that the distinction is, uh, not obvious? In Argusworld?