Crumbling PMO Organization?

There's been quite a flurry of departures from the PMO in recent weeks, and even The National Post is commenting on it.

But strange things are happening in Prime Minister Stephen Harper's close-knit office. A senior advisor and at least one strategist are moving on, which has some Conservative observers concerned about internal morale and questioning the operation's top official.

This is interesting all by itself. When senior advisors start jumping ship, one of two things is wrong. Either the ship is sinking, or the captain is coming unglued.

Harper is a micromanager in the extreme, and micromanagers tend to fall apart when the number of issues that they have to deal with exceeds their ability to get a grasp on each and every one individually.

When a country is blasted by the kind of economic storm currently blowing around the world, the number of issues goes up dramatically. It can come as little surprise that things are rapidly exceeding Harper's ability to manage.

MPs confide there's a darkening mood in the big guy himself, hardly surprising given the stormy economic challenge Mr. Harper faces. One source says there was a blowup between a furious Prime Minister and key players last week. And PMO chief of staff Guy Giorno is now plotting the second major internal shuffle in eight months.

Uh huh. In short, Harper's losing his cool because things aren't going his way. Hardly the mark of strong leadership.

My counter-argument to saddling the Conservatives with the crumbling economy is that none of the other federal leaders would have managed affairs much differently if confronted and confounded by an imported global recession shedding jobs and creating bankruptcies at such a horrific speed.

Here's where I disagree with columnist Don Martin. All of the other parties were running the flag up the pole last fall, while Mr. Harper was blithely promising Canadians that the "fundamentals of our economy are solid". Anyone with their eyes open could see the storm clouds gathering on the horizon, although few would have guessed the pervasiveness and severity of them.

Second, Mr. Harper has not managed this situation well at all. Instead of managing things to the benefit of Canadians, he has tried to turn it into another weapon in his constant, ongoing partisan warfare. The November FU was nothing more than a bunch of vacuous statements, followed with actions designed to inflame the situation - mere weeks after he was reluctantly re-elected by a Canadian public forced to choose between three marginal leaders.

Then he suspended the management of Canada's affairs for almost two months in order to draw up a budget that just might be passed by the House of Commons - if he didn't try to poke another stick in the opposition's eyes.

Harper hasn't managed a damn thing yet. He has, however, overseen the most vicious partisan warfare I've ever witnessed in this country; and now is poised - like his predecessor, Brian Mulroney, to plunge Canada still deeper into debt. (and, I wonder, just what kind of accountability the HarperCon$ will be demanding of those who are the beneficiaries of the government's sudden largesse?)

Straight From the PMO?

Defence Dept. restricts interviews during election

Bureaucrats said the department's assistant deputy minister for public affairs issued a directive stating that they cannot grant interviews for the duration of the five-week campaign.

"During an election period it is of utmost importance that National Defence employees and Canadian Forces members do not act in any way that could influence – or be perceived as influencing – the outcome of the electoral process," reads the directive, sent to The Canadian Press following a request for an interview on a health matter affecting Canadian Forces personnel.

The Assistant Deputy Minister gave the order you say? Oh...so that probably means it came from the political leadership - that would be Peter Mackay, wouldn't it? Peter, who marches along so smartly in lock step with Stephen Harper.

In fact, this would be the same Peter Mackay who reneged on his pledges and sold out the Progressive Conservative party and handed the keys over to the Harper-led ReformaTories.

Anyone want to place odds that a few conveniently unrecorded phone calls between PMSH and Mackay got this ball rolling? After all, we wouldn't want the public thinking too hard about things that go "boom" and result in dead bodies during an election, would we?

MicroManagement's Limits

I have said it before, but Micromanagement has serious limits. The Conservative approach to Communications and Information management takes things to new depths.

In the 6th-floor office of a nondescript building sit the gatekeepers, the bureaucrats who decide what Canadians learn about the workings of their government.

Questions on the hot issues of the day all get funnelled through this office, the "communications and consultations" unit of the Privy Council Office, housed in the Blackburn building that fronts the Sparks St. pedestrian mall.

Throughout the government, it's known simply as "downtown," the place where decisions are made on who speaks on issues and what they say. In the Conservative government's clampdown on communications, this is Ground Zero.

Now, I've expressed my concerns over Harper's micromanaging style and how he has clamped down on any communications at all before.

But, there's another side to this, one that the HarperCon$ don't understand - namely how it affects their own hobby horse programs:

Two big policy pushes by the Tories in recent weeks – sweeping immigration reforms and a "Canada First" defence plan – have been badly hobbled by communications blunders. In both cases, the initiatives were unveiled with few details.

In the case of the Canada First strategy, an aide to Defence Minister Peter MacKay says the government has a "very detailed" – but secret – plan.

If you think it's bad now, it's going to get worse:

The clampdown could get worse. Auditor-General Sheila Fraser recently revealed that the government is proposing a new policy that would require all communications "products" to be vetted by the Privy Council Office.

One government official said the new rules would formally enshrine in policy the unwritten rule that now exists.

"The screws are being tightened bit by bit. It's gotten very extreme in the last six months. Just more and more delays, more and more control over things, less and less things getting approved," the official said.

Not only does Harper's non-communication approach raise serious questions about what he and his cronies are up to, but it also is behind their inability to convince anyone of the merits of their programs.

What is it With Conservatives and Delegation?

Jeepers! What is it with today's Con$ervatives and their utter inability to actually delegate anything.

On the Federal level, we have the micromanaging PMSH who is gradually losing control over portfolio after portfolio as things spiral out of control - whether or not he's looking at it.

Provincially, we have the Stelmach government consolidating its grip on all things health related.

Consolidating everything in Edmonton, under an organization that is responsible to the political minister who also has responsibility for the department responsible for oversight and policy is not a good sign. It points to a centralization of authority in our provincial government that is worrisome.

Under Klein, the Conservatives consolidated control over both civic and education related funding - and made a complete hash of it, and it appears that under Stelmach, they are preparing to do what Klein always backed away from with health care.

While the Con$ often speak the language of "smaller government" etc. etc., when it comes down to it, the current varietal in both Edmonton and Ottawa in fact seems to be more about control than anything else. Liepert's vague comments about "unifying" the health system, and making it "seamless" is beginning to worry me a great deal. Such broad, vague terms, and the moves he is making suggest that he is planning to take things down a path that he isn't willing to be open with Albertans about.

Worse, the Alberta voters handed Ed Stelmach a 'bigger-than-ralph' sized majority, and the man hasn't even led the government for a full term. This means that the Alberta Con$ are apt as not to do whatever they want, and they'll do it sooner rather than later on the basis that they'll be hoping that the voters have forgotten what atrocities they commit by the time the next election is due. (Sadly, I suspect that they are right on that last point - Alberta voters don't seem to have any kind of memory, much less long term memory)

Bernier-Couillard: The Gift That Keeps On Giving

Bernier's dalliances are turning into quite the story. In this morning's newspaper, we find that Ms. Couillard had those papers for five weeks.

Questions about how secret government documents went missing for five weeks without alarms being raised dogged Stephen Harper's government the day after Maxime Bernier was forced out as foreign affairs minister over the security breach.

The Prime Minister, in Paris on a European tour he began only hours after he announced Mr. Bernier's resignation, essentially declared the affair over – insisting that a Foreign Affairs Department review of the incident is enough, and rejecting an expanded probe.

Superficially that might almost seem reasonable - after all, no harm was really done, right?

Wrong.

This whole business calls into question the continence of the governing part with respect to classified documents. This is not just an "oops, I forgot them overnight" moment - not only did Bernier leave those papers for five weeks, it's pretty clear that he did exactly nothing to retrieve them:

“Why did it take the government five weeks to discover that documents were missing, and why did it take the government five weeks to ask a question either of the member for Beauce, the former minister, or of Madame Couillard?” Liberal foreign affairs critic Bob Rae asked in the Commons.

“Why do you sit on your duffs and do nothing for five weeks?”

Government House Leader Peter Van Loan insisted that the Prime Minister's Office was told about the missing documents only on Monday, “and after being informed of the situation with these documents, the Prime Minister acted.”

During that time, Ms. Couillard could easily have made as many copies as she desired. To dismissively say that "no secrets were breached" misses the point entirely. Those documents were classified for a reason, and both Harper and Bernier have shown us a blatant disregard for those reasons.

Further, it shows us the cracks and weaknesses in Harper's management style. In order to maintain the facade of being competent, Harper has to exact an ever increasing amount of direct control on his people, their actions and the actions of their associates. The question that the Bernier affair opens is not "what was breached?" (although that is a valid question), but rather we should be asking "what's next?".

Try as they might, the PMO cannot effectively control every action of the government and its ministers. Because the PMO has imposed such a strong grip on the ministerial and senior bureaucracy of all departments, you have to know that there's going to be more - it's inevitable. And next time may well be much more serious for Canada.

Canadians should not accept PMSH's blithe attempts to brush this mess off as a "non-issue" - just as AdScam demonstrated that the Chretien-era Liberals had lost sight of their responsibilities to the public, "L'Affaire Bernier" shows us that the HarperCon$ lack the flexibility, judgment and discretion necessary to safeguard Canada's interests.

Harper The Micromanager Strikes Again

For a government that claimed it was going to "clean up" in Ottawa, watching the Iron Curtain of secrecy descend is quite worrisome.

Now we have Harper trying to muzzle the Auditor General.

Fortunately, our current Auditor General isn't exactly a 'shrinking violet' type:

Auditor-General Sheila Fraser found allies yesterday who condemned the Conservative proposal, which could mean that Parliament's officers must vet their public statements through a wing of the Prime Minister's Office, as an unprecedented attack on the independence of the officers, who are supposed to work at arm's length.

I wonder how long it will be before PMSH finds an excuse to get into a pissing match with Ms. Fraser so that he can justify firing her and replacing her with someone more compliant with his wishes control everything with an iron fist. Harper isn't a democratic leader, he's a totalitarian.

- This has been another entry in the TAG file...

Wingnut Legislation - Bill C-537

Remember Maurice Vellacott - the MP who asked Harper not to put him in cabinet so he wouldn't have to compromise his beliefs?

Well, right on the heels of Bill C-484 (the criminalize abortions act), we find Vellacott putting Bill C-537 before the House of Commons.

So, just what is Bill C-537, you may ask? Well, it seeks to amend the Criminal Code of Canada S.425 to protect the "conscience rights" of educators and medical practitioners with respect to subjects they "object to". (e.g. Distributing contraceptives for example)

Section 425(1) deals primarily with what most of us understand to be "whistleblower" situations:

425.1 (1) No employer or person acting on behalf of an employer or in a position of authority in respect of an employee of the employer shall take a disciplinary measure against, demote, terminate or otherwise adversely affect the employment of such an employee, or threaten to do so,

(a) with the intent to compel the employee to abstain from providing information to a person whose duties include the enforcement of federal or provincial law, respecting an offence that the employee believes has been or is being committed contrary to this or any other federal or provincial Act or regulation by the employer or an officer or employee of the employer or, if the employer is a corporation, by one or more of its directors; or

(b) with the intent to retaliate against the employee because the employee has provided information referred to in paragraph (a) to a person whose duties include the enforcement of federal or provincial law.

Punishment
(2) Any one who contravenes subsection (1) is guilty of

(a) an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years; or

(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

2004, c. 3, s. 6.

Vellacott's legislative dropping isn't even "on topic", but rather attempts to add "non-compulsion" clauses regarding "matters of conscience" worded as follows:

(2) Every one is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction who, being an employer or the agent of an employer,


(a) refuses to employ a health care practitioner,


(b) refuses to advance or promote a qualified health care practitioner, or


(c) dismisses, or threatens to dismiss, a health care practitioner from employment,


because the health care practitioner is, or is believed to be, unwilling to take part, directly or in an advisory capacity, in any medical procedure that offends a tenet of the practitioner’s religion, or the belief of the practitioner that human life is inviolable.

(3) Every one is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction who, being an educator or the agent of an educator in any field of health care in Canada,


(a) refuses to admit any person to courses in a field of health care, or


(b) refuses to grant accreditation in a field of health care to any person,

because the person is, or is believed to be, unwilling to take part, directly or in an advisory capacity, in any medical procedure that offends a tenet of the person’s religion, or the belief of the person that human life is inviolable.

(4) Every one is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction who, being an officer of a professional association of health care practitioners, or the agent of any such officer,


(a) refuses to admit a person to membership in the professional association,


(b) refuses to advance or promote the standing of a person as a member of the professional association, or


(c) excludes a person from, or threatens to exclude a person from, the professional association,


because the person is, or is believed to be, unwilling to take part, directly or in an advisory capacity, in any medical procedure that offends a tenet in the person’s religion, or the belief of the person that human life is inviolable.

So...in Maurice Vellacott's world, there is an equivalence between an employer who retaliates against an employee who has reported violations of Federal Law to law enforcement authorities, and moralizing pharmacists who refuse to do their job. Wow - that's quite a leap.

Like Epp's ever-so transparent attempt to set the foundation for banning abortion in Bill C-484, the wording that Vellacott uses is so astoundingly broad that it could be used (or abused) in a plethora of unhappy ways.

Consider the following phrase which ripples through Vellacott's legislation:

...that offends a tenet of the person’s religion

I have a huge problem with this phrase. First off, in the context of S.425 overall, it declares an equivalence between codified Federal Law, and its interpretation through the various agencies of government including the judiciary and religious "tenets" - written or unwritten as interpreted primarily by the individual.

The concept of 'religious tenet' is contentious even among theologians, and to place such an ambiguous concept at the same level of importance as someone reporting possible violations of law to the government is troubling. I'm sure just about anything could be declared a violation of someone's religious tenets, depending on how one reads various tidbits of scripture.

the belief of the person that human life is inviolable

Again, this is very troublesome wording. Superficially, this is intended to protect people who object to procedures such as abortion from being punished for refusing to participate. However, again, the overall wording is exceptionally broad and all too easily could be read to include topics such as contraceptives or even dispensing information about STIs.

There are some serious problems with this legislation. It opens up the possibility where a practitioner could easily refuse service to someone even under emergency conditions.

Consider the possibility that as a result of a late night traffic accident, a woman is brought into the emergency with serious, life threatening injuries. Not only is she seriously injured, but she is also pregnant. Surgery is required, but it is also likely to result in the termination of the pregnancy. So, the doctor(s) on shift abstain from participating in the surgery because it might "violate the tenets of their religion" to be involved in a medical procedure that would result in the termination of the pregnancy.

We aren't talking about a procedure that can wait here, but rather a situation where action must be taken immediately. In this circumstance, Vellacott's law could be read to imply that the appropriate professional organizations involved could not take disciplinary action against the doctors involved even though the decision to refuse to participate would stand in violation of the ethical guidelines and regulations of the profession.

*Note: The above scenario is hypothetical, and intended to be illustrative of the possible consequences of this legislation. It is however, rooted in an amalgam of real-life situations where needed treatment has been arbitrarily refused on what amount to moral grounds

Vellacott's legislation is vastly out of line with the intent of S.425(1) in the first place. Second, like Epp's bill C-484, it is overly broad in its wording to the extent that it actually puts someone's interpretation of their religion above and ahead of their obligation to do their job.

Further, Bill C-537 is rooted in the assertion that "god-fearing Christians" are being "forced" to do things against their will or faith. Of course, nothing could be further from the truth. Except in the festering imaginations of people like Maurice Vellacott and Charles McVety, no such thing is happening. Typically, the cases that they point to as examples actually wind up being a reflection of someone being completely intransigent - or worse - with respect to doing their jobs; or arbitrarily denying service to people on what amounts to whim.

If, for example, a pharmacist wishes the right to refuse to dispense certain medications based on their religious beliefs, the clients have a right to know that up front. It should not be a matter of finding out by having your prescription refused at the desk, or a phone call left 'on hold' forever. If that means posting a sign by the dispensary that says "Christian Pharmacist on Duty - Limited Service Available" - fine. Do it. Just don't put me as a patient in the awkward position of having to find out by getting a moralizing lecture from said pharmacist.

Further, I would argue that in situations where the practitioner has specific religious objections, that the areas of treatment that will be curtailed be listed where a prospective client will be able to see them. The issue is not one of religious discrimination at all, but rather one of clarity. People should not have to guess whether or not they will be "granted" service from day to day.

In more sensitive areas, such as emergency treatment, such situations are less voluntary for the client and similarly, there are moral and ethical duties that the practitioner must be held accountable to. In practical terms, Vellacott's approach to the laws involved would effectively oblige the Federal Government to become the owner of topics such as medical ethics, as Vellacott has proposed making it a criminal offense for the existing regulatory bodies (such as the Colleges of Physicians) to enforce their ethics rules.

During the fall 2005 election, I predicted that Harper was going allow his back-benchers to write the truly wingnutty garbage legislation, and I wasn't disappointed.

Now, just to follow through, let's take a look how the various Con$ervative MPs voted on Bill C-484:

Stephen Harper	Y
Jason Kenney	Y
Dianne Ablonczy	Y

This is just a random sample, but having gone through much of the "front bench" in Harper's Cabinet over at How'd They Vote Canada, I'm seeing a remarkable level of consistency in the Conservative party voting pattern on Bill C-484, and I imagine a similar pattern will emerge in the as C-537 approaches vote time. Why? Because we already have considerable evidence that Harper is a Micromanager, which tells me that the odds are pretty high that the caucus is finding themselves ordered to vote a particular way on every issue. (For example, I was a little surprised to see Ablonczy vote for C-484 - she's a pretty smart lady, and I would have expected her to vote against such an open-ended and dangerous piece of legislation).

In my opinion, this is another piece which underscores the fundamental dishonesty of the HarperCon$. Harper hasn't got the basic honesty as a politician to state what he really wants to do, so he leaves it to the obvious wingnut politicians to write the most vile legislation - he just votes for it. Think about this.

Destructive ...

Okay, the fact that little Stevie has a destructive bent in him is no surprise. We only have to look at his grandiose adventures in Afghanistan for that.

However, his high-handed style is beginning to take a toll within his party as well. There's some rather interesting fallout starting to emerge from his cabinet shuffle at the beginning of the week:

Flaherty has been dropped from key committee positions:

Finance Minister Jim Flaherty has been moved from two key cabinet committee positions, losing both the chair of the economic growth and long-term prosperity committee and his vice-chairmanship of the Treasury Board committee, a position that has been traditionally held by finance ministers.

Supposedly this is a "message" from the PMO to Flaherty to pull up his socks. The problem with this kind of "message" is that it's classic behaviour for micromanagers. They don't tell people specifically what they are unhappy about, but rather rely on the ability of the employee to intuit what they are unhappy about after a rather public, but oblique slap has been delivered.

Mr. Flaherty, who remains a member of the two committees, will now serve on the economic growth committee under the new chair, former Liberal MP David Emerson, the International Trade Minister.

A cabinet minister said Mr. Emerson's promotion was because “his stock has been going up internally.”

The fact that Harper is "promoting" David Emerson is troubling all by itself. Emerson has already shown himself to be an opportunist and a liar. The fact that Harper continues to keep him in cabinet belies the honesty of Harper's campaign promises last election to provide more "open, honest and accountable" government. (Especially after the screaming hissy fit that the Con$ had over Belinda Stronach's crossing to the Liberal benches)

Con$ervative Insiders Lose Chief of Staff Posts:

A second federal government shuffle - this one of top aides to ministers - is creating grumbles in the insular world of Conservative insiders in Ottawa.

At least three chiefs of staff lost their posts when their ministers were shuffled, but the move of long-time Conservative and early Stephen Harper supporter Michele Austin has become the talk of the town, according to several Conservative aides and strategists.

Okay, no big deal. This is essentially a political move within the party, right?

Well, sort of true. However, it is also a rather interesting window into the inner workings of Harper's government and how its playing within his party.

Ms. Austin, the highly regarded chief of staff to Maxime Bernier when he was industry minister, was told by an aide to the Prime Minister, Bruce Carson, that she would not follow her boss to Foreign Affairs. Instead, the Prime Minister's Office told her she would work for the demoted Gordon O'Connor in the low-profile National Revenue post.

I can understand why she might refuse that post - going from a minister on their "way up" to a minister on their way out - in terms of long term career prospects, that's not exactly encouraging, is it?

... However, several said they view the treatment of Ms. Austin, a Reform Party veteran, as punishment for her willingness to challenge PMO directives when she felt they were not good ideas or were bad for her boss.

Whoops! There we are. Still more demonstrations of the destructiveness of micro-managers. In this case, we have someone who dared question or challenge the opinions of the all-wise PMO, and presto! - they're shipped off to lower Siberia.

This is not just poor leadership, it's downright awful leadership being demonstrated, and it's horrendously destructive to an organization.

Of course, that's not the only ham-fisted thing the PMO's done recently within the party ranks on Parliament Hill:

But some Tory insiders said Ms. Austin's departure has led to a round of grumbling among Conservatives who view the PMO's staff-relations approach as "ham-handed," comparing it to what some felt was an overly aggressive recent request from the PMO that each minister's chief of staff donate $1,000 to the Conservative Party.

Do the math, people. Not only is Harper acting like a petty tyrant towards other parties in Parliament, but he's extending those destructive tendencies within his party - and in the worst ways possible.

The message is becoming quite clear indeed - toady to Mr. Harper or you can expect to receive the worst treatment he dares deliver. There are three premiers in this country who can attest to that already, and by the sounds of it, more than a few party insiders who have found this out the hard way.

A little bit of grumbling is normal, possibly even healthy, in an organization. However, ham-fisted demotions of people for daring to disagree or challenge an edict is a sign of leadership gone amok. This is neither good for the Con$ervative party, or Canada.

The Failings of MicroManagement, Part XVII - Afghanistan

I've commented on just how badly Harper's micromanagement style is going to get things wrong.

Sure enough, we see that when the PMO wasn't getting the reports on Afghan detainees. WTF? Why in heck should it require the PMO to figure out that abusing prisoners, or handing them over to abusers is bad karma?

Where was the Minister of Foreign Affairs? Or the Minister of Defense? These are the two ministers whose direct responsibility the Afghan mission falls under in one form or another. Feigning ignorance doesn't cut it.

Mr. MacKay said that until recently, he knew nothing of the reports either.

"The human rights reports are not normally copied to the Minister of Foreign Affairs, nor is the Minister briefed on their content," Mr. MacKay wrote in response to NDP defence critic Dawn Black. In a separate response, National Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor wrote that he and his predecessors had also not been made aware of the human rights reports.

MacKay and O'Connor may well not have been made aware of those human rights reports. In which case, not only should they resign, but half of their political staff should be fired immediately for gross incompetence. You're conducting activity in a war theatre, and neither of these men is paying attention to the human rights files? Okay, boys, it's time to put away the guns - because clearly you haven't got a goddamned clue what you are doing! Ignorance of such an important issue in today's world is inexcusable.

I think we can guess where they were. Mackay was busy licking Condi's boots to a fine polish (you get to imagine how Condi was dressed), and O'Connor was busy fulfilling his unfinished contracts as "lobbyist" for various military hardware vendors.

As for the PM? Well, obviously he had bigger things to do - like piss off China for example.

In the Commons yesterday, Government House Leader Peter Van Loan said that "everybody knows that the Department of Foreign Affairs reports annually on human rights."

In fact, the Foreign Affairs Department initially denied the existence of the Afghan human-rights report, saying in response to an access-to-information request earlier this year that "no such report on human rights performance in other countries exists." Only after complaints to the Information Commissioner was a heavily edited version of the report released in April.

Like the business with Celil rotting in a Chinese prison, or Omar Khadr being paraded like a sacrificial sheep through the kangaroo courts in Guano Bay, the HarperCons keep showing that they have no idea about dealing with human rights of any sort, nor do they give a damn - whether or not you are a Canadian citizen.

Worse, they are outright willing to lie, and cover up what they are (or are not) doing in the name of Canada. It's time for this bunch of incompetent, lying bastards to leave office. They are clearly neither ready for, nor able to govern a nation...much less Canada.