Harper The Micromanager: The Cracks Start To Show

I've said for a long time that Harper is a micromanager, and that's very bad news for both his party and Canada.

Well, as is inevitable, some Conservatives are starting to get it.

“When you take everything on on your own, how can you possibly – no matter how brilliant you may be – know the sensitivities of a file?” a senior Tory asked. “You're bound to make mistakes when you don't have the day-to-day, hour-to-hour, second-to-second knowledge.”

All I can say here is "well duh"! But then again, I've known that for a long time - from rather personal experience. Harper finds himself in the midst of a leadership pressure cooker, and his style will simply degrade over the coming months as the issues he cannot manage outweigh the issues that he is trying to manage.

Capturing the whole picture quite nicely, the Globe and Mail quotes from The Strategic Counsel:

“It the old smartest guy in the room syndrome,” said Mr. Gregg, chair of The Strategic Counsel. “He handles all the issues because he believes he's better at it and he may be right 90 per cent of the time — but the 10 per cent when he isn't, he ends up wearing it.”

Basically, at this point in time, we (Canadians) have three paths open to us:

1) Harper wakes up and backs off. This is highly unlikely, because the micromanager is often so convinced of their own convictions and the "rightness" of their actions that they won't consider options. One might argue that allowing Baird to unveil the CPoC environment policy is a sign of this happening, but Harper doesn't believe the environment is important, so he's willing to let a minion run with it as long as they don't become a liability.

2) Harper continues to mire Canada and her government in the morass of micromanaged stupidity where his priorities get the stage, and the real priorities get sidelined to the detriment of the nation. (Harper's already doing quite a bit of damage to Canada - our reputation on the world stage is rapidly turning into that of "Bush's Toadie", and a country who doesn't stand behind its commitments.

3) The opposition wakes up, brings this turd of a government down, and we vote in something else. (Believe me, anything is going to be better for Canada as long as it isn't run by a micromanager)

Death By Micromanagement

Micromanagement is one of the most destructive forces that can emerge in an organization. So, what happens when a government is run by a micromanager like Stephen Harper?

Sooner or later the business of governance will grind to a halt. When everything has to be vetted through the PMO before it gets out, that means there's a lot of blind spots coming up. If it's not on Harper's personal radar, he's not going to deal with it effectively - and running one of the most prosperous economies in the G8 is a big job, with a lot of facets.

Harper's renowned distaste for the media in general doesn't help - here's a man with not only a chip on his should where the media is concerned, but also a man whose attitude in general is very similar to other micromanager types - ideas that aren't "his vision", will get ignored.

Ultimately, the inflexible, distant attitude of Harper will work against him - I think he is hoping to be able to hold "the message" together long enough to get to the next election without too many loose lips escaping his grasp. Only when Harper has his goal of a majority government will there be any chance of Canadians finding out what HarperCrit's real agenda is. (Frankly, I'm not at all sure I want to find out)

Rigid, inflexible approaches to leadership mean that the leadership feels it cannot changes its decisions for fear of being accused of weakness. Harper is demonstrating not only a rigid approach to things, but it is becoming increasingly apparent that Harper isn't interested at all in Canadians finding out just what exactly his government is up to. Most things are being announced "after the fact" (e.g. the NORAD agreement), and Harper isn't asking for a debate, so much as he is defying people to challenge his authority.

Go read any decent book on management strategies, and you will quickly learn that Harper's approaches to things are guaranteed to fail.

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?)

Micromanagement Implosion

In my personal life, I've had a number of opportunities to watch micromanagement tactics implode. Inevitably, in times of crisis, the Micromanager becomes overwhelmed, and either lashes out or turtles. Neither response is terribly productive, and neither response will ever solve the problems being faced by whatever the micromanager is responsible.

Such is clearly the case with our Prime Minister, Stephen Harper. It quickly became apparent that Harper is a Micromanager after he was sworn into office this winter.

This past week, we have had quite the dollop of examples showing just how destructive and ineffective this approach is.

First, Micromanagers try to control information flow - both up and down the ladder. Sure enough, at the APEC conference, Canadian media is being kept away from him, as far as possible. Apparently because he doesn't want to answer awkward questions.

Second, micromanagers often undermine their own people. We have a beautiful example of this kind of behaviour when his aides go running around asking senior bureaucrats to report on how "effective" their bosses (cabinet ministers) are at communications. (The question isn't invalid, however trying to do it in secret is another classic sign of incompetent management that is so insecure about their context that they feel it necessary to be highly secretive in their actions.

(Perhaps somewhat justified in a way, especially given the utterly embarrassing performance of Rona Ambrose this past week)

However, Stephen Harper is demonstrating several aspects of micromanagement that indicate that he is actually a very weak political leader. By attempting to control the flow of information to Canadians while he is abroad, he further raises questions about his actual conduct and intentions. By "going turtle" as soon as he receives an "unexpected" question, Harper further demonstrates an inability to respond to the fluid realities of the world around him.

The currents of public events are water to his stony demeanor. Remember, sooner or later the water will erode the rock.

Micromanagement in the Media

It seems that the media is starting to clue into the fact that Harper's micromanaging style is setting the Cons up for disaster.

I'm not exactly a fan of Sheila Copps on many topics, but she's got this one dead right, and it's the first time I've seen a columnist in the 'right-wing' of our media sphere (and yes, the Sun Media group is very right wing, IMO)

I've said for some time that Harper is a micromanager, and guaranteed to implode sooner or later. Ms. Copps observes similarly:

Harper broke the first rule of politics: Let your ministers take the lead with a clear departmental line of authority.

BOGGED DOWN

Save yourself for the big picture. Getting bogged down in minutia only hurts. Because there is no clear departmental lead, no one will assume responsibility when the going gets tough.

She cuts through Harper's bungling of the Afghanistan prisoners affair beautifully, pointing out the fundamental problem with how Harper has handled this affair:

But Harper's own vision is so tied to the military that he has paid little attention to the balance needed in government. There is a reason Foreign Affairs leads on international agreements involving multilateral treaties and conventions. It is their job to canvass the views of all relevant departments and come to a balanced conclusion about Canada's responsibilities abroad. The military has another job, to defend territorial integrity, to fight insurgents or terrorists and to execute the orders of their civilian bosses.

By putting the military in charge of prisoner transfer, Harper and Martin should have known they were courting trouble. These enemy prisoners are the same people who have blown up innocent people and taken out dozens of Canadian soldiers and a diplomat. They are the "scumbags" that Hillier warned about.

Asking the military to negotiate Taliban transfer is like asking the police to sentence the criminals they catch. The general may have wanted to be judge, jury and executioner but the prime minister should have insisted that Foreign Affairs take the lead.

So, Mr. Harper, How is doing NOTHING realistic?

If there is one thing that infuriates me about PMSH and his glib pronouncements on the world stage, it is how utterly devoid of meaning they are.

This week, we find "Dear Leader" prancing about Europe, further damaging Canada's reputation as a player on the world stage, and reinforcing the idea that Canada is being run from Washington these days.

But Harper this week is going on the offensive, trying to explain to leaders and others that, in his view, climate change policies or programs that protect endangered plant and wildlife species must be based on targets that are affordable, realistic and try to balance any economic costs against environmental gains. It is a pitch he and his environment minister, John Baird, have often made to a domestic audience.

"We have vowed to get past the empty rhetoric and to take real action to require Canadian industry to make real reductions in greenhouse gas emissions," Harper said in a speech in Bonn, Germany, at the United Nations Conference on Biodiversity, a meeting attended by delegates from 119 countries.

Meanwhile, at home, Harper has done exactly nothing to rein in some of Canada's worst emissions producing industries. Oh wait, he's putting money into "carbon sequestration" technology - more or less filling salt caverns with CO2...technology which barely exists today, and requires decades of active work to become meaningful. Meanwhile, his government is doing little or nothing to set meaningful standards against which we can measure progress, nor have they set any kind of targets that are even remotely meaningful.

We cannot assess whether something is meaningful, affordable or realistic when it is primarily the CO2 filled air being expelled from Harper's lungs as he speaks. I wasn't impressed much with either Chretien or Martin on their handling (fumbling) of taking steps with regards to Kyoto - Harper's worse on the subject because he speaks out of both sides of his face, and does even less.

Getting rid of Bernier might have been a good start, but replacing him with the ever present face of PMSH the Micromanager is NOT an improvement.

Cracks In The Caucus Ranks?

Well, it appears that Stephen Harper's little "cheap points" tactic of a motion to "Recognize the Quebecois Nation" may be exacting a small, but not insignificant price in the caucus. The Minister for Inter-Governmental Affairs resigned his post.

Remember, that in effect, Stephen Harper's motion undermined his minister quite explicitly. This motion is firmly in Mr. Chong's portfolio as the minister responsible for inter-governmental affairs, and Mr. Harper has taken not only the actions, but clearly has done so without regard for his minister's opinions on the matter.

Like Mr. Turner, I will put pretty good odds that mysteriously, Mr. Chong will find himself rapidly marginalized by the CPoC caucus as a result of his "disloyalty" - in spite of protestations to the contrary.

This kind of active undermining activity is classic micromanager technique, and reinforces the notion that Mr. Harper is not confident in his ability to unify and lead his team. So, instead, as the cracks begin to emerge, we can expect to see Mr. Harper take more and more upon himself, to the detriment of the effectiveness of himself and his team.

Unless Harper learns - quickly - to delegate responsibility, his government's implosion and failure is a matter of time.

Conservative Justice Bills

Let the whining begin. It seems that PMSH is all upset because a bunch of the Conservative government's "justice bills" are hung up on objections from the opposition benches.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper, in the midst of the fall parliamentary session, finally resorted to the time-honoured tactic of branding his opponents as obstructionist - and threatening to make them pay at the polls.

"We'll keep trying to bring forward some tough-on-crime legislation," Harper declared. "But at some point, if the opposition won't pass it, they'll have to answer to the Canadian people."

Typical of the micromanager, when he can't get his way, Harper resorts to bully tactics.

But, let's consider Harper's "amendments" to the criminal code and their impact a little:

Toews admitted, as the session drew to a close, that he was frustrated with the track record, but like Harper laid the blame on the opposition.

"I can only say that we're pushing forward with our agenda," said the minister. "I'm disappointed that the other parties haven't kept their election promises."

Nine criminal justice bills remain before the House, some of them relatively innocuous measures to fine-tune existing laws.

More significant are bills to raise the age of sexual consent to 16 from the current 14, and to crack down on drug-impaired drivers.

But Toews says his top priority in the new year will be a bill imposing tougher mandatory minimum sentences for gun-related crimes, up to 10 years in the most serious cases.

He also wants action on legislation making it easier to classify people as dangerous offenders after three serious convictions. That could lead to locking them up indefinitely.

Opponents say those bills illustrate what's wrong with the Tory approach - the assumption that stiffer sentences, in themselves, will prevent crime.

I think that two of Toews' bills are illustrative of a much more dangerous problem with Conservative justice policy. Both the "3 Strikes Law" and their proposed amendments to bail rules turn the concept of of "Innocent until proven guilty" upside down by presupposing guilt and insisting that the accused demonstrate that they are "not a risk".

In a free and democratic society, the supposition of innocence in criminal proceedings is vital to keeping the state from using its powers to unreasonably constrain individual liberties. The suspicious thing here is that the Conservatives could easily achieve the desired effect in legislation without playing the 'reverse onus' card.

I suspect that for all of the Conservative government's attempts at obfuscation, the use of "reverse onus" tactics is in violation of Section 11 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, especially clauses d and e which read:

(d) to be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to law in a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal;
(e) not to be denied reasonable bail without just cause;

They may also be somewhat in violation of clause (c):

(c) not to be compelled to be a witness in proceedings against that person in respect of the offence;

At least as far as the inverted obligation of proof would likely require the accused to testify on their own behalf in many cases.

So besides the amazingly expensive process of putting more people behind bars, the Conservatives have demonstrated a complete lack of understanding of the relationship between criminal law and the Constitution. They seem to think that accusation is equivalent to a finding of guilt, and worse that once someone is thought to have committed a crime, that the rights of that person are suspended.

Duffy Is The Canary In The Corruption Coal Mine

The story swirling around Mike Duffy changes faster than the Tory spin machine can keep up with.  A few days ago, Duffy had allegedly repaid the $90K in ineligible expenses.  Then yesterday it comes out that he hadn't actually repaid them himself, but rather someone in the PMO had handed Duffy a cheque for $90K.

But, let's dial back a ways to the beginning of this story, shall we?

Back in February, auditors were asked to investigate the residency claims of several senators, including Mike Duffy.

At that time, Duffy stated:

“As a Prince Edward Islander, born and bred, I am proud to represent my province and its interests in the Senate of Canada,” Duffy said in the statement.

“I represent taxpayers with care, and Canadians know I would never do anything to betray the public trust. I have a home in Prince Edward Island as required by law. I will have no further comment until this review is complete.”

Amusingly, a few days later, we learn that neighbors near Duffy's alleged "primary residence" on PEI hadn't seen him there very often at all.  Which, of course, raises questions as to whether or not Duffy is even eligible to sit as a Senator for PEI at all.

In march, Duffy promised to pay the expenses back.  In itself, that seems to be the honourable and appropriate thing to do.

During April, Duffy claimed he was going to do nothing until the results of the audit were in only to turn around a day later and claim that he had already paid the amount outstanding back.  The Conservative politburo in the PMO has lost control of this story - it has spun so far out of control that they cannot bury it.  The most recent twist of a "gift" of $90K to Duffy from a high level PMO staffer just smells wrong.  Not necessarily strictly wrong, but morally and ethically suspect.  To claim that Harper didn't know about it seems less than believable, especially given Harper's known track record as a micromanager.  Paying the money back smacks of a cover-up (which it is), and the longer this goes on, the worse it looks for both Duffy and the credibility of the Harper government.

One might be tempted to look upon this as simply an individual Senator overreaching their privileges.  That is certainly easy enough to do, after all Duffy is but a singular senator, and one who comes from a background of considerable privilege both in his personal life and as a reporter on Parliament Hill before he became a Senator.

Then we have the revelation that he was claiming significant expenses on his Senate expense account whilst campaigning during the 2011 election campaign.

Social media and newspaper reports offer a glimpse of how Duffy's busy campaign schedule overlapped with the Senate business he reported to auditors:

— On April 5, Duffy spoke to the Kootenay-Columbia Conservative association in British Columbia. His travel claims indicated he was on Senate business.

— On April 8, candidate Sandy Lee tweeted that she was meeting Duffy in Norman Wells, N.W.T. Lee's campaign paid Duffy $209.01 in expenses. His travel claims indicated he was on Senate business.

— On April 21, Duffy was reportedly campaigning with candidate Scott Armstrong in Nova Scotia. Armstrong's campaign paid Duffy $409.91 in expenses.

— On April 28, Duffy appeared to have a busy day in the Toronto area, campaigning with candidates Maureen Harquail, Wladyslaw Lizon and Gin Siow. Lizon's campaign paid Duffy $169.45, as did Siow. His travel claims indicated he was on Senate business.

— On April 29, former cabinet minister Lawrence Cannon tweeted a picture of Duffy at an event outside of Ottawa that same day. The Deloitte audit listed Duffy as being in Ottawa on Senate business and claiming a per diem.

If Duffy collected daily Senate expenses while on the Conservative campaign trail, taxpayer may have paid twice: Conservative candidates who paid for Duffy's hotel stays would have received federal rebate money for those expenses.

Duffy's campaign events did not end there. On at least five other occasions documented in media reports, Duffy campaigned with Conservative candidates. He did not tell Deloitte about his campaign calendar, forcing Deloitte to list his activities as "undocumented."

In essence, taxpayers were paying for Duffy to travel around Canada campaigning for the Conservative party.

The first thing that comes to mind is that ALL Senators expense claims during the election campaign need to be reviewed.  If it is in fact a "normal practice" for Senators to claim travel expenses while on the campaign trail, that needs to stop.  Now.  An election campaign is not in any meaningful sense of the word "Senate Business".

However, this is but one thread in a much larger tapestry of Conservative dirty tricks during the 2011 election campaign.  Consider, for example the infamous Robocalls Scandal where Conservative telephone calls to constituency residents were used to direct voters to non-existent voting stations.  As if that were not enough, we also have Peter Penashue's resignation as a result of irregularities in campaign spending.  While there is no excusing Duffy's actions, he is in some ways the proverbial "canary in the coal mine".  He has been just naive enough that he has been caught out in a web of lies, deceit while his hand was firmly in the cookie jar.

Politics is a dirty sport at the best of times, and few if any politicians can claim to be entirely clean.  However, under Harper, things have sunk to levels far below those which Mulroney's government sank to in the late 1980s.  This is blatant corruption and pork-barrel politics at its worst.  While the events around the Airbus Affair certainly did not pass the smell test, they had a degree of ambiguity to them.  What we are seeing today is much more blatant in the degree and extent of the corruption and abuse of Canada's system of governance.

At the rate that he is going, Harper's legacy to Canadians will at its best be the redemption of Brian Mulroney.

The HarperCrit, Wingnuts and the Media

My, my, my - what stew the news is making this morning.

First off, we have Harper and Defense Minister O'Connor contradicting each other about the issue of media access to the return of the bodies of our fallen soldiers. One of you two twits is lying through your teeth - and I have a sneaking feeling it's not O'Connor.

Then, we move right along to more about the PM being utterly intransigent in his little temper tantrum with the media. What Harper's forgetting is that the Parliament Hill media will eat just about anyone alive - regardless of party stripe. Harper needs to grow up and realize that he's not in his "safe home ground" of Alberta any more, and it's a big ugly world out there where there's more opinions than his.

Lastly, we get a little more insight into the micromanager and wingnut struggle going on in the CPC: with the PMO giving a gag order to his MPs over two gay RCMP officers who are getting married. Apparently, Harper doesn't trust his MPs not to say something stupid. (Admittedly, after Vellacott making an idiot of himself, perhaps we can't entirely blame him for not trusting his people - it's not like the wingnuts aren't there, is it?

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.

Tories Whining About Senate ... Again

Okay, PMSH, you don't like the Senate - probably because you can't control it with the same micromanager's approach you bring to your party's attempts at governance. I think the public get that already.

The latest hissy fit you are throwing about bill C-2 is utterly ridiculous.

First, let's take a look at a couple of things here. The criticism the government is making is that the Senate is "delaying" the bill.

Then there's reality, as shown by the status history of the bill on the House of Commons LegisInfo system:

First reading in the Senate was November 29, 2007.
Second reading in the Senate was December 12, 2007.

According to the Senate's calendar for 2007, the Senate rose for Christmas break on December 21, and resumed January 29, 2008.

The first hearings of the Senate Committee took place on February 6, 2008. Again, one might look at this and wonder what was happening. As it turns out, at the time, the Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs was working on Bill C-11, which had been referred to the Senate on October 29.

In short, Bill C-2 was "in the queue". The fact that Harper tried to ram it through the House of Commons (and when you consider that the legislation is a rehash of five other very badly worded pieces of law, one might be just a little suspicious of the short time it spent in the House of Commons).

Dion is quite right to say that his members will abstain from voting on this motion. It is little more than a poorly thought out attempt on Harper's part to get his way by bullying. What we are learning here is not that the Senate is the problem, but rather that Harper is incapable of the kind of negotiation and compromise that has long been a key to success in our parliament.

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...

Reasons I Don't Trust Stephen Harper

When The Mini Shrub moves protect an MP who is less useful than a bale of hay, you have to know that a priorities are screwed up.

Rob Anders' track record in the house is a pathetic collection of pratfalls that most frat boys would be embarrassed by.

However, when Harper moves to protect an MP like Anders, and by inaction leaves an MP that tries to work hard for his constituents like Garth Turner, out twisting in the breeze, I think the message is pretty clear. Suck up to Stephen, or else.

Coming from a two-bit micromanager, that's not surprising.

Politically, protecting Rob Anders is a silly move. Few people seem to have anything good to say about the man - you could easily replace him with someone else with fewer political liabilities. (Heaven forbid that goofball ever seeing a seat in cabinet!)

Sadly, it also means that there are reasons that Harper hasn't managed to calm down the extreme elements of the CPoC - he can't. Not without losing his own personal base of support.

Turning To Libel Chill

How interesting. Harper now wants to claim libel over the Chuck Cadman bribery affair.

As is typical for a micromanager, he wants to control everything, and when something starts to get out of his control the first tool he reaches for is the threat of libel action.

He doesn't come clean on the issue, he doesn't provide a sane explanation for the events that are apparently so well documented. No, instead, we find Harper pulling from the Lyin' Brian toolbox, and threatening lawsuits. This coming from a man who spent much of the previous election promising Canadians a more open, honest, accountable government, and has delivered Truly Awful Government instead.

If we wish to talk about libel, perhaps we should be taking a closer look at the 'attack ads' that Harper's bunker has been lobbing at Dion.

Turner on Caucus Style Differences

Garth Turner tells us about his first caucus meeting as a member of the Liberal caucus on the hill.

I was immediately invited to sit in on caucus committees debating tax, economic and trade policies. I was swept into a conversation on social policy alternatives. A wise and experienced guy took me aside to discuss the raging, noisy debate on the oil sands and the environment.

What a contrast there was between this room of engaged people, and the dour group meeting at the same time, in the same building, fifty feet away across a corridor. For the better part of a year I came to know caucus every Wednesday morning as a time when Conservative MPs gathered to listen to PMSH give an opening speech and a closing speech, with ministerial statements, threats from the whip and orders from the house leader in between.

Interesting - although I've suspected that Harper was mostly a micromanager for a long time, some of Turner's observations expand the picture considerably - showing us how desperate the CPoC is to hang onto power.

No debate then. No discussion. The contrast with today could not have been more stark. Inside the national Liberal caucus I was struck at how collegial it was, a tone set by Stephane Dion. I was heartened by the ideas I heard flying around and the obvious willingness of people writing legislative changes and policies for the next election, to embrace mine. This bodes well, I thought. This is what caucus should be. This is where concepts and visions gain political life. This is what voters and constituents would expect me to be doing with other MPs. Finally.

I had thought that Dion would bring a much more positive approach to things than PMSH ever could. I've never seen Harper do anything other than appear either a) distant and aloof (he's really not listening to you) or b) Angry. Not exactly the kind of person that invites discussion.

I recognize that Garth has his own axe to grind here - the ultra conformist ranks of the CPoC gave him a pretty rough ride last year, and commenters on his blog are often equally harsh towards him. However, what he is describing here is consistent with what I have been able to guess about Dion from a handful of media exposure moments, and a little bit of experience with watching the Liberal shadow cabinet as it starts to make itself heard.

Dion always struck me as a very classical man - one who views decision making as a matter of discourse (at least up to the point of coming to a decision). In any form of democracy, discussion is vital at all levels.

MPs who do not listen to their constituents (e.g. Jason Kenney) are not representing anyone except themselves. If the leadership invites discussion, then that will be reflected in the behaviour of the lower level MPs as well when they are dealing with their constituents.

Is It Just Me?

Last night, in a telephone conversation, the observation was made about how the CBC had organized two stories in their 6:00PM newscast. The first story was about Harper's $1200/child childcare subsidy, which was followed up by an article about a study in Quebec that suggested that placing children into daycares before they were two years old was "a bad thing"(tm).

The implication was that this was a "manipulated message" - namely one intended to serve a propoganda purpose. At the time, I brushed it off. For the most part, the CBC has traditionally managed to do a pretty good job of reporting factually and honestly.

However, micromanagement (and Harper's clearly a micromanager)tends to beget more micromanagement. I'm beginning to suspect that the CBC has been "put on notice" to be "good little mouthorgans" for the CPC government, or risk having major funding cuts in the upcoming budget.

Why would I say this? Several reasons - looking back over my own blog columns in the last couple of months, less and less of my raw source material has been coming from the CBC. In fact, the CBC's reporting of Canadian - and international - political affairs has become nearly non-existant. Even more disturbing is the significant gap between what's on the "World at 6" newscast and the stories carried on CBC's website. (Major omissions on the website, mostly).

Then, I found The Globe and Mail publishing yet another government official being micromanaged. After this outrage, it begins to fit together. The CPC government is going to try and tightly control every message coming out of government - to the extent of _telling_ us what we want.

(I'm just waiting for Peter Mackay to come out of his next snugglefest with Condoleezza Rice and tell us that Canadians WANT to go to war in Iran...)

Mackay - The Disappearing Foreign Minister

With Peter Mackay roaming about the Middle East on a US-styled tour, one would think that our reporters would have pretty good access to him.

However, while the stories in the print media are relatively tame, on the broadcast media, it's clear that reporters are getting quite frustrated and angry. MacKay's itinerary is conveniently omitting things that he is doing, and outside of carefully controlled "photo op" moments, MacKay's not saying anything.

Now, granted, so far he and his master, Stephen Harper, haven't exactly been the dynamic duo on the world stage. Nuance and subtlety are not their strong suits. However, it appears that instead of learning from past mistakes and becoming a bit more of a diplomat, Peter MacKay has taken a page out of the Micromanager's Handbook and is simply not saying anything that might get back to his public.

At a visit today to a Palestinian school surrounded by barriers and Israeli checkpoints, we learned more about the visit from the School's Principal than from Mr. MacKay - who was ushered into the facility, given a tour and ushered away without talking to Canada's media.

Now, think about this. Here's MacKay trying to do the same style of regional tour that we have seen US Secretary of State Rice do before, only the difference here is Rice manages to make herself appear accessible. MacKay is acting as though he is afraid of the press - and by extension, Canada's voters.

Why the obsession with secrecy, Mr. MacKay? Do you perceive yourself to be so much better than the rabble of Canadians that we couldn't possibly comprehend the awesome subtlety of your activities? Or are you just trying to hide your incompetence?