Tory Whistleblower

[jdobbin]

What the Liberals were trying exploit was that "handcuffing him was excessive." Nobody had come out to say he did not commit any crime.

Who exactly said he committed a crime? He wasn't charged with one. He was released. Do you have a quote from MDuffy about why he was released? No evidence of criminal behavior?

[betsy]

This guy will be on every talk show.....starting with Mike Duffy! Lol.

Do you have a deal with Mike Duffy to mention him in your posts? I'm just curious because it seems you have done it literally hundreds of times.

I was going to ignore this...but just for the record, and to be polite...I'll answer this once.

Because I watch MDuffy! And I'm naming my source! Like we're supposed to. Who's counting???

If you don't have any other pertinent statements to add...can you please move aside so the arguments relevant to this thread can go on smoothly?

[betsy]

Who exactly said he committed a crime? He wasn't charged with one. He was released. Do you have a quote from MDuffy about why he was released? No evidence of criminal behavior?

Then why doesn't he come out now and explain? This will be his big chance to stretch his 15 minutes of fame...and really bring it down on the government's head....if he was the one who's really the victim here.

Mike Duffy said no high-profile environmentalists who had helped this man get on tv cameras would want to appear on his show to be interviiewed about this either. Why?

[BubberMiley]

I was going to ignore this...but just for the record, and to be polite...I'll answer this once.

Because I watch MDuffy! And I'm naming my source! Like we're supposed to. Who's counting???

If you don't have any other pertinent statements to add...can you please move aside so the arguments relevant to this thread can go on smoothly?

Touchy.

[jdobbin]

Then why doesn't he come out now and explain? This will be his big chance to stretch his 15 minutes of fame...and really bring it down on the government's head....if he was the one who's really the victim here.

Mike Duffy said no high-profile environmentalists who had helped this man get on tv cameras would want to appear on his show to be interviiewed about this either. Why?

If I was this guy's lawyer, I would tell him to be quiet so that the issue could be fought in court.

[Argus]

When this Liberal gets upset, he posts new topics.

At 22 posts a day(that's a lot of time posting every day), I think he's totally obsessed with the Conservatives running his Liberal government and he wants it back.

Maybe he's a Liberal mole.

I have asked the moderator if the policy on personal attacks is still in effect.

I don't why you're doing this. I am not taking personal issue with you nor am I attacking you. I make no reference to you in my posts. I am not criticizing you in my replies. If you feel I have somehow attacked you, I apologize.

Perhaps he was simply irritated by the rabid, blind partisanship of your posts?

[jdobbin]

Perhaps he was simply irritated by the rabid, blind partisanship of your posts?

Irritated or not, the rules are no personal attacks or inflammatory language. Several people have been suspended such as ScottSA and Fat Freddie for not following that rule. Perhaps people should not take things personally.

[betsy]

Then why doesn't he come out now and explain? This will be his big chance to stretch his 15 minutes of fame...and really bring it down on the government's head....if he was the one who's really the victim here.

Mike Duffy said no high-profile environmentalists who had helped this man get on tv cameras would want to appear on his show to be interviiewed about this either. Why?

If I was this guy's lawyer, I would tell him to be quiet so that the issue could be fought in court.

Maybe that's what's happening. Who knows.

[Michael Bluth]

When this Liberal gets upset, he posts new topics.

At 22 posts a day(that's a lot of time posting every day), I think he's totally obsessed with the Conservatives running his Liberal government and he wants it back.

Maybe he's a Liberal mole.

I have asked the moderator if the policy on personal attacks is still in effect.

I don't why you're doing this. I am not taking personal issue with you nor am I attacking you. I make no reference to you in my posts. I am not criticizing you in my replies. If you feel I have somehow attacked you, I apologize.

That's a personal attack?

Everything Stan said is correct.

You have serious issues with the Conservatives. You start threads aimed at attacking and nothing else.

The most recent example of a patently false premise for a thread was asking why this Environment Canada punk wasn't protected as a whistle blower.

Your never ending attacks are offensive to a number of posters here. You aren't open to debate. On some, rare, occasions you do raise some good questions. But that is because you negatively question EVERYTHING the Conservatives do.

You are obsessed with the Conservatives. Blinded with hate really. Your never ending attacks on the Conservatives has gotten to the point that Conservative supporters here see them as personal attacks.

Please show a little respect.

[fellowtraveller]

It says, "it concludes that his conduct was inappropritae and unethical, and a breach of Senate rules on access to information and privacy."

I can't however, find the part that says he broke the law.

Wasn't the guy arrested at the Environment office not charged? Apparently, he didn't break the law either.

Maybe he was given a break? Just a slap on the wrist?

I stole your wallet. You report it to the cops. The cops found out it was me who stole it....came and handcuffed me, and took me to the station. In the meantime, you decided not to file any charges. To just let it drop.

What I did was still a crime, wasn't it?

The decision to charge you does not normally rest with either you or the police, but with the Crown prosecutor. The police gather evidence, and make a recommendation to the Crown. In quickie cases, they'll just charge you anyway.

But.... if you made it clear that you wouldn't identify the thief, wouldn't assist the police, they would likely drop it especially in such a minor matter.

[kimmy]

Jeez, Dobbins. In the other thread, it was explained for you at least a dozen times why the Environment Canada guy is not a whistleblower, and you apparently still didn't figure it out. Do you also need it explained to you why this guy *does* qualify as a whistleblower?

Really, Dobbins, you're smarter than this. This kind of thread would be about par for the course for some of the Harper-haters on the site, but I usually expect a higher quality of contribution from you.

People who risk their jobs and even jail time to bring forward information that is in the public interest deserve our thanks, and to be protected and not punished for acting in the interest of the public.

Was Jeffrey Kroeker a whistleblower? He appears to have exposed a deliberate waste of public by a group of senators who essentially conned the public into paying for a week-long holiday at a luxury hotel in Dubai. Why should the guy be punished for it?

Was Jeff Monaghan, the Environment Canada guy who leaked the greenhouse gas plan ahead of its intended release, a whistleblower? Whistleblowing involves exposing corruption or criminal behavior, not attempting to disrupt the public release of a piece of policy.

Was it in the public interest that the plan be leaked 2 days ahead of schedule? Just the opposite: the leak created the potential for insider trading.

I heard the Liberal MP who the document was leaked to interviewed on CBC radio the morning after he received the document. He explained his decision to not release the contents of the document by pointing out that it contained information that could have an impact on the stock market. He also pointed out that they had no way of knowing who else the document had been leaked to. What if a stock-broker or investor had received a copy?

If Monaghan had sent this document to a stock-broker or an investor rather than an MP, nobody would be questioning whether it was a criminal act.

When the leak occurred, opponents of the Conservatives pointed out that the leak was a potentially serious security problem that Canadians should be concerned about. They were RIGHT. Trying to now recast the leak as whistleblowing that was of value to the public interest is just pure stupidity.

-k

[jdobbin]

Jeez, Dobbins. In the other thread, it was explained for you at least a dozen times why the Environment Canada guy is not a whistleblower, and you apparently still didn't figure it out. Do you also need it explained to you why this guy *does* qualify as a whistleblower?

Really, Dobbins, you're smarter than this. This kind of thread would be about par for the course for some of the Harper-haters on the site, but I usually expect a higher quality of contribution from you.

I haven't argued the whistleblower argument in that thread. I posed the question at the beginning whether the person should be considered a whistleblower or a lawbreaker. I said that Tories used to call individuals like this who revealed Liberals legislation as whistleblowers.

Please review that thread and you will see no one has explained anything to me on whistleblowing because I didn't make the argument that he was. Ever.

I personally don't think it was whistleblowing and that the government had the right to fire him.

What I have argued here is that it doesn't appear that he broke the law. The reason I have said so is because while he was arrested, the charges were suddenly dropped. At least that is what the impression has been. No one seems to be talking.

As far as the Senate worker goes, I don't think he is a whistleblower either. The all party Senate committee was right to reprimand him because he impersonated someone to get information to discredit Senators. Such information would have been available from the expense accounts or freedom of information inquiries. What he did was freelance without the minister's knowledge and released it to the media.

I think that anyone who serves as a cabinet minister can afford to have someone freelance like this. We've already seen another incident where a staffer was writing on behalf of a Tory which ended up embarrassing him.

[Keepitsimple]

Somewhat off-topic but very much related to the Heavy Hand of government interference - does anyone remember Francois Beaudoin? I encourage you to read the whole article from 2005, by Lorrie Goldstein. This scandle didn't get as much play as it deserved in the Liberal media. Jean Chretien took horrendous, vindictive action against an honest civil servant. More than anything, this demonstrates the tyranny that existed in the Chretien PMO. How these guys have stayed out of jail is beyond comprehension. They were thugs.

And even AdScam, for which Chretien bears ultimate responsibility, doesn't reveal the former PM at his worst. For that, we must turn to another Grit scandal -- what Chretien and his lackeys did to Francois Beaudoin when he was president of the Business Development Bank of Canada.

By then, two Chretien cronies, Michel Vennat and Jean Carle, were making Beaudoin's life a living hell. Vennat, the BDC's chairman, had been appointed by Chretien. Carle, the bank's senior vice-president of public affairs, had previously been Chretien's director of operations. From 1999 to 2003, Vennat and Carle presided over a vicious smear campaign against Beaudoin for defying Chretien. Quebec Judge Andre Denis would later describe the two men's actions as "an unspeakable injustice" designed to "break him and ruin his career."

Link: http://www.canoe.ca/NewsStand/Columnists/T.../pf-989928.html

[Michael Bluth]

I haven't argued the whistleblower argument in that thread. I posed the question at the beginning whether the person should be considered a whistleblower or a lawbreaker. I said that Tories used to call individuals like this who revealed Liberals legislation as whistleblowers.

No, that's not what you said. Here's what you said.

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

There is a big difference between somebody revealing information and legislation.

Name a Government of Canada employee who revealed proposed Liberal legislation and was defended by the Conservatives.

[jdobbin]

The Conservatives in 2002 called Shiv Chopra a whistleblower when he revealed that Canada was stockpiling antibiotics in the event of an anthrax attack. He was fired in 2004.

The Conservatives in 1999 called Robert Read a whistleblower when he made accusations of corruption in the RCMP. He was fired.

On May 10, 2007, the Supreme Court ruled that both men failed to show the public's right to know outweighed the loyalty to their bosses.

My statement that Conservatives used to call such people whistleblowers still stands. My opinion is that what we have seen this past week was not whistleblowing and *should* have ended in the loss of the job. In one case that happened, in the other it didn't. I think the danger to the Tories is that the guy they have kept in place has already shown that he will freelance without the minister's permission. That is showing disloyalty in altogether a different fashion.

[noahbody]

The Conservatives in 2002 called Shiv Chopra a whistleblower when he revealed that Canada was stockpiling antibiotics in the event of an anthrax attack. He was fired in 2004.

The Conservatives in 1999 called Robert Read a whistleblower when he made accusations of corruption in the RCMP. He was fired.

On May 10, 2007, the Supreme Court ruled that both men failed to show the public's right to know outweighed the loyalty to their bosses.

My statement that Conservatives used to call such people whistleblowers still stands. My opinion is that what we have seen this past week was not whistleblowing and *should* have ended in the loss of the job. In one case that happened, in the other it didn't. I think the danger to the Tories is that the guy they have kept in place has already shown that he will freelance without the minister's permission. That is showing disloyalty in altogether a different fashion.

Your examples don't back up your statement. Canada wasn't about to announce they were stockpiling antibiotics. The RCMP weren't about to announce they might be corrupt. The envro plan was about to be announced.

[jdobbin]

Your examples don't back up your statement. Canada wasn't about to announce they were stockpiling antibiotics. The RCMP weren't about to announce they might be corrupt. The envro plan was about to be announced.

The first incident was classified as a national security policy. The second was that the RCMP (until the last federal election) doesn't reveal whether they are investigating someone.

In both incidents, the Tories called them whisteblowers. The court disagrees.

[Michael Bluth]

My statement that Conservatives used to call such people whistleblowers still stands. My opinion is that what we have seen this past week was not whistleblowing and *should* have ended in the loss of the job. In one case that happened, in the other it didn't. I think the danger to the Tories is that the guy they have kept in place has already shown that he will freelance without the minister's permission. That is showing disloyalty in altogether a different fashion.

So that's your point now.

The staffer made public abuse of public funds by the Senators in question.

I thought you were offended by misuse of public funds even by Liberals.

[Argus]

My statement that Conservatives used to call such people whistleblowers still stands. My opinion is that what we have seen this past week was not whistleblowing and *should* have ended in the loss of the job. In one case that happened, in the other it didn't. I think the danger to the Tories is that the guy they have kept in place has already shown that he will freelance without the minister's permission. That is showing disloyalty in altogether a different fashion.

So that's your point now.

The staffer made public abuse of public funds by the Senators in question.

I thought you were offended by misuse of public funds even by Liberals.

I would be surprised if he had ever acknowledged that the Liberal party was even capable of misusing public funds. By definition, whatever the Liberal Party wants to do is in the public interest, after all.

[jdobbin]

I would be surprised if he had ever acknowledged that the Liberal party was even capable of misusing public funds. By definition, whatever the Liberal Party wants to do is in the public interest, after all.

I have said so numerous times in numerous threads that the Liberals abused the public trust with sponsorship money and out of control spending as an election ploy.

As far as the ministerial aide in the Senate goes, I have seen no evidence that the costs of the trip were being covered up or were being left off expense accounts. I don't consider it whistleblowing. I don't consider the guy in the Environment department a whistleblower either.

[Michael Bluth]

As far as the ministerial aide in the Senate goes, I have seen no evidence that the costs of the trip were being covered up or were being left off expense accounts. I don't consider it whistleblowing. I don't consider the guy in the Environment department a whistleblower either.

But do you see a difference between what the Environment Canada guy did and the Senate aide did?

[kimmy]

The Conservatives in 2002 called Shiv Chopra a whistleblower when he revealed that Canada was stockpiling antibiotics in the event of an anthrax attack. He was fired in 2004.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/ottawa/story/2007...pra-070510.html

He basically went to the press and said:

"Health Canada is spending a bunch of money on these vaccines and I think it's a big fat waste of money for political purposes."

On one hand, if Health Canada was wasting a bunch of money, I do think it's in the public's interest to know. And, if he could show that they knew that it was a waste of money and that they knew it was just for public relations, then you could argue that he was exposing wrongdoing.

On the other, it was only his opinion that the money was being wasted. I don't really think he was exposing corruption or wrongdoing within the department, either. Just a policy decision that he disagreed with.

Interestingly, he was involved in an earlier incident that does sound like whistleblowing.

The Conservatives in 1999 called Robert Read a whistleblower when he made accusations of corruption in the RCMP. He was fired.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2007/05/10/...mp.html?ref=rss

According to the article he was fired for going public with the claim that the RCMP was interfering with his investigation of Canadian consulate staff selling visas to Hong Kong gangsters.

He certainly sounds like a whistleblower. The CBC calls him a whistleblower. To me he sounds a lot closer to Jeff Kroeke than to Jeff Monaghan. Do you feel that the Conservatives were mistaken to refer to him as a whistleblower?

On May 10, 2007, the Supreme Court ruled that both men failed to show the public's right to know outweighed the loyalty to their bosses.

For both Chopra and Read, one could make a good argument that they *were* whistleblowers, and the fact that their cases went to the Supreme Court would seem to prove as much.

My statement that Conservatives used to call such people whistleblowers still stands.

Only if you can convince me that Jeff Monaghan can be fairly grouped with Chopra and Read. I don't think the situations are very close at all.

Determining whether Chopra and Read were whistleblowers went all the way to the Supreme Court.

Monaghan's case wouldn't even make it to Kimmy-Kourt.

My opinion is that what we have seen this past week was not whistleblowing and *should* have ended in the loss of the job. In one case that happened, in the other it didn't. I think the danger to the Tories is that the guy they have kept in place has already shown that he will freelance without the minister's permission. That is showing disloyalty in altogether a different fashion.

Well, maybe Helena Guergis should watch her back. Maybe it's risky to have this guy on her staff. But I see no reason why it would be unethical.

-k

[jdobbin]

For both Chopra and Read, one could make a good argument that they *were* whistleblowers, and the fact that their cases went to the Supreme Court would seem to prove as much.

I don't think they were whistleblowers in either case. Nor do I think the two individuals this last week are whistleblowers.

The RCMP officer provided no documentation for his accusation. The Health Canada worker provided documentation and an opinion of wasteful spending but even the auditor didn't think much of it.

The Liberals have not called the Environment Canada worker this week a whistleblower. They have not protested the firing. The only thing I questioned is whether he broke the law.

As far as the ministerial staffer, I don't think he is a whistlblower either because I am not convinced that someone was actually blocking the information from being available. It may not be unethical to have him remain on staff but he is not trustworthy and could get his minister in trouble.

[kimmy]

I haven't argued the whistleblower argument in that thread. I posed the question at the beginning whether the person should be considered a whistleblower or a lawbreaker. I said that Tories used to call individuals like this who revealed Liberals legislation as whistleblowers.

Please review that thread and you will see no one has explained anything to me on whistleblowing because I didn't make the argument that he was. Ever.

With the "...not led away in handcuffs" comment, you were pretty clearly trying to draw a comparison between Jeff Kroeke and Jeff Monaghan. As far as I'm concerned, it's a comparison that falls terribly flat.

What I have argued here is that it doesn't appear that he broke the law. The reason I have said so is because while he was arrested, the charges were suddenly dropped. At least that is what the impression has been. No one seems to be talking.

I believe the official word is that they are continuing to investigate.

As I said before, if Monaghan had sent the document to a stockbroker or an investigator instead of an opposition MP, there'd be no question in anybody's mind that the law had been broken.

So this is better because the motive was malice instead of greed?

As far as the Senate worker goes, I don't think he is a whistleblower either. The all party Senate committee was right to reprimand him because he impersonated someone to get information to discredit Senators. Such information would have been available from the expense accounts or freedom of information inquiries. What he did was freelance without the minister's knowledge and released it to the media.

You can make a strong argument that Jeff Kroeke (and Shiv Chopra and Robert Read) are whistleblowers. You can make a strong argument that Jeff Monaghan is a moron, but that's about all.

Kroeke apparently used inside knowledge of the trip, plus an investigative technique that's commonplace amongst journalists and private investigators and suspicious spouses and any other private citizen, to put forward a claim that senators deliberately wasted public money on a 7-day holiday in Dubai. I've got no problem with it.

I think that anyone who serves as a cabinet minister can afford to have someone freelance like this. We've already seen another incident where a staffer was writing on behalf of a Tory which ended up embarrassing him.

I'm sure that Ms Guergis is touched by your concern for her welfare.

-k

[jdobbin]

With the "...not led away in handcuffs" comment, you were pretty clearly trying to draw a comparison between Jeff Kroeke and Jeff Monaghan. As far as I'm concerned, it's a comparison that falls terribly flat.

I believe the official word is that they are continuing to investigate.

As I said before, if Monaghan had sent the document to a stockbroker or an investigator instead of an opposition MP, there'd be no question in anybody's mind that the law had been broken.

So this is better because the motive was malice instead of greed?

You can make a strong argument that Jeff Kroeke (and Shiv Chopra and Robert Read) are whistleblowers. You can make a strong argument that Jeff Monaghan is a moron, but that's about all.

Kroeke apparently used inside knowledge of the trip, plus an investigative technique that's commonplace amongst journalists and private investigators and suspicious spouses and any other private citizen, to put forward a claim that senators deliberately wasted public money on a 7-day holiday in Dubai. I've got no problem with it.

I'm sure that Ms Guergis is touched by your concern for her welfare.

I was making a joke about him not being led away in handcuffs. It should be noted that Kroeke was able to obtain the Senators' personal credit card numbers when he impersonated a Senate authority. Was it malice or greed when that information was made public? Whatever it was, it could have resulted in charges.

I still don't believe the recent two cases are examples of whistleblowing and feel fairly certain the Supreme Court would agree. You might feel that one was and was not. I have only seen rare examples of actual whistleblowing.

I also have no idea what "continuing to investigate" means. The police seemed so cocksure when they made the arrest. I await the conclusion of this investigation. My opinion is that he didn't break any laws.

As far as "whistleblowing" goes, my argument was and always has been that the Tories used to call every leak "whistleblowing." I believe that August posted an unscientific Globe poll that revealed the majority believes the release of this information was wrong even if it was argued that it was in the "public interest." That's an interesting stance. Perhaps there is recognition that a lot of whistleblowing is simply "gotcha" politics.

Ms. Guergis does have my sympathies.