Canadian Corruption

[sanch]

To me cleaning up the civil service is the most important task that awaits the new government. I have worked with different government ministries in Africa and Latin America and so know a bit about corruption and incompetence. For the last couple of years I have been dealing with different Canadian departments and I have been totally blown away by the level of ineptness and total disregard for the rule of law I have encountered. From my experience Canada is right up there with the most corrupt countries in the world.

In general I would say that most liberals (here and elsewhere) were dismissive of the corruption and basically did not think it was that important of an issue. Or they said it was occurring under the conservatives as well. The problem with this reasoning of course is that the Liberals have pretty much had a monopoly on governing Canada over the last century. The other line of defence is look at the United States. There is a problem with this as well for despite the many problems the US has it does have a government that is fairly transparent and accountable. So pointing the finger at the US is not a defence for Canadian corruption.

Now after the election I am hearing/reading comments like the conservatives managed to dupe Canadians into changing governments. There is an urban/ rural divide with urbanites being better educated and more knowledgeable and more liberal. There are real Canadian values and only the liberals should be entrusted to uphold them.

I am totally confused by the liberal indifference and tolerance for corruption. Why? What was in it for elected officials? Did people not know that in a country that prides itself on its social services that having those services administered by a government that is corrupt and incompetent will undermine those very services? How do you improve social services in an environment like the one Judge Gomery describes? And what he describes is my experience as well and it is universal to every part of Canadian government. Imagine yourself the newly appointed head of a department filled with the type of employees that Judge Gomery describes. How would you get anything done?

Judge Gomery expressed his amazement last year that former bureaucrats had not been sanctioned for their misdeeds.

"Sometimes you get people who just more or less deliberately disregard the law, and from what I could see, you can't even fire these people," Judge Gomery said during public hearings last May.

"If [managers] find an employee who is short of being outright corrupt, who is simply totally incompetent and totally careless in doing the job, there is nothing really that you can do with that person except to move them out of that job and into another job where probably that person will be equally incompetent or equally incapable."

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20060130.wxgomery30/BNStory/National/

 

[missile]

I've worked in the Civil Service,and while I failed to see any widespread corruption in my branch,I did see plenty of instances of incompetence and mostly sheer laziness. Most of the managers supervising me over the years were not fit or competent enough to run a counter at MickeyD's. They were,however, mostly very nice people tho.

 

[sanch]

Canadians in general are very nice people. A definition of corruption would also include abuse of power, continuous negligence, etc. These nice employees who are not qualified for their positions must know they are not doing their job and that their negligence might cause someone harm. So they are abusing their power. It falls under Tort Law and Canadian courts have ruled government employees can be sued for abuse of power.

 

[#juan]

sanch

I think your post says more about your anti-Liberal stance than it does about Canadian corruption. The Liberal party does not have a corner on corruption. While I normally would support the Liberal party, I'm opposed to any party being in power for more that two terms and it was time for a change.

The sponsership scandal only involved a few people and most of those have been dealt with. As missile said, incompetence in middle management is fairly common. This will continue as long as it is more important to learn the paperwork than it is to learn how to better do your job. Someone who is good with the paperwork is likely to progress quickly as far as the Peter Principle will let him/her.

You will be hard pressed to find corruption in our civil service but you will certainly find examples of incompetence.

 

[missile]

I believe that if the Civil Service was disbanded and all the services contracted out,we'd be in deep s..t! It is still the most cost efficient way to provide the services that we expect from our Govt. No manager of mine ever put my life in risk! like I said, they were nice guys and understood the nature of my job and the pitfalls of it.. and were understanding whenever I did something like spraying an attacking dog[and the owners complained!]

 

[sanch]

Politically I support most of the policies of the liberals. In Mexico I liked a lot of the policies of PRI. In both these cases I recognized that corrupt practises were undermining these policies.

So You are saying Juan that Judge Gomery is wrong? Obviously Gomery is very concerned or he would not recommend the changes that will appear in the second report. What do you make of the quote below? Is all this just hoopla over nothing but a few middle managers extending their nap time.

"The proposition that ministers and their political staff have no responsibility whatsoever for seeing to the proper implementation and administration of government programs and policies is an inadequate and incomplete expression of the principle of ministerial responsibility," he wrote in the first report.

 

[missile]

What I'd like to have happen here is all the Heads of the various Crown Corps be hired for the qualifications only, and not because of their political viewpoints.

 

[sanch]

I believe that if the Civil Service was disbanded and all the services contracted out,we'd be in deep s..t! It is still the most cost efficient way to provide the services that we expect from our Govt. No manager of mine ever put my life in risk! like I said, they were nice guys and understood the nature of my job and the pitfalls of it.. and were understanding whenever I did something like spraying an attacking dog[and the owners complained!]

What I am describing here is an issue and a Pandora’s box that Canadians will have to deal with in the next few months. Harper is going to introduce the Accountability Act that will ensure that corruption and incompetence are contained as the first order of business. This will be a system of checks and balances. And once the checks and balances start the civil service will be transformed. This is going to be reality very soon.

Why did no government ever put in a system of checks and balances before? The liberals knew how essential a system of accountability and transparency is for a functioning government because Bill Graham as foreign minister lectured developing countries about it all the time. Now we have an example of a government not following their own advice. How credible does this make Canada internationally? It’s very strange.

 

[#juan]

sanch

There is no Pandora's box. There is no seething awamp of corruption. That is in your imagination. I don't doubt there is the odd corrupt civil servant. It would be more odd if there weren't. Checks and balances were already in place. Stephen Harper can make all the noise he wants but any changes will be mainly cosmetic. Coming from the U.S. you should know all about corruption in government.

 

[sanch]

sanch

There is no Pandora's box. There is no seething awamp of corruption. That is in your imagination. I don't doubt there is the odd corrupt civil servant. It would be more odd if there weren't. Checks and balances were already in place. Stephen Harper can make all the noise he wants but any changes will be mainly cosmetic. Coming from the U.S. you should know all about corruption in government.

#juan guess now I am really confused. Why is Gomery getting so much publicity? It seems rather extreme if corruption is an exception and not the rule as you say it is. You don't create legislation for exceptions and the accountability act draft is very specific and Gomery wants to make it stricter. How can I imagine something that is in the newspapers.

I am a Canadian who lives in the US. Yes there is corruption but politicians and civil servants who get caught usually go to prison. They don't according to Gomery even lose their jobs in Canada. That is a big difference don't you think?