Investigation Into Health Canada Firings Needed

I'm curious to know what corporate interests the government is trying to protect with these draconian measures.

This is a complex issue.

Most employees who publicly criticize the decisions of their employer would, I imagine, be subject to some sort of disciplinary action, such as dismissal.

I haven't followed this case in detail however, it seems more a matter of the scientists publicly calling into question a decision of their employer on the basis that this could in their view pose a risk to the Canadian public than it does 'whistleblowing', e.g., scientists have proof senior officials accepted considerations from a drug company in return for orchestrating approval of a drug. If the scientists are concerned that approval process is in some way inadequate, e.g., insufficient testing, again it's the employers perogative to determine what an adequate approval process is.

This mostly comes down to what the role and duty of a Canadian public servant should be.

All national decision making power belongs to the Government of Canada. As it isn't practical for the Government of Canada to involve itself in every aspect of the day to day governing processes of the nation, you need a public service to administer these activities on behalf of the government. To enable the public service to administer a piece of legislation on its behalf, the government delegates, generally through that legislation, some its powers to public service officials.

It's important to understand that in our system the public service administers legislation on behalf of the government, rather than working directly on behalf of Canadian citizens. The public servant's primary job is to protect their Minister.

So, following through the legislative chain, if you criticize decisions approved by delegated public service managers, you are in fact criticizing the Government of Canada.

Which brings us to the conundrum faced by many public servants.

A public servant is at both times a Canadian citizen and an employee of the Government of Canada. The public servant is obviously affected by decisions made in government and the public service however. However, it isn't the job of the public servant to judge the 'sense' of a decision or legislation, their job is to administer it.

Unlike the private sector, the public sector has a duty to an employer (the government) and, in conscience if not in legislated fact, the public good.

In some cases a public servant may find themselves in a situation where doing their duty as a public servant doesn't appear to serve the best interests of the public. How do you deal with this in a transparent and effective manner that doesn't allow the issue to be swept under the carpet, while still allowing the employer some protection from employees who might not be adverse to publicly criticize it every time a decision is made that doesn't sit well with them?.

Like I said, it's complex.

I think COC is jumping the gun. The three workers are members of a union who has already indicated it will appeal the ruling. No investigation is needed pending the outcome of that process, an outcome which might very well reverse the ruling and might very well expose whatever the reasons for firing might have been. That's what collective bargaining agreements and labour standards laws are for.

As former chair of a union (for four years), I would certainly object to having the grievance process pre-empted by a third party, no matter how well-intentioned.

Paul Harris

In matters such as the firing of three scientists, it is neccessary that an investigation be launched by an Independent organization; Independent of Health Canada, Independent of Government of Canada, and independent of the corporations whose products are involved in the case under consideration.

Presently the courts seem to be the only independent voices that can deal with these kind of questions. But we must find some ways of financing these court cases. Because I believe these cases will take Canada forward and make it a better society.

Canada is already considered by many people around the world as an examplary society; but we have to keep vigilant, and keep on moving forward.

Here we have a major issue that saps the energies of all societies, the issue of ethical decision making. Enron, Bre-X, recent scandal of misused funding by Government of Canada. The issues in Health Canada case raise serious issues of ethics. The way we address them may help us move forward as a country.

It appears this Health Canada case is ifluenced by parochial interests, rather than by Health of this country. Let this case not tarnish the image of our public institutions and bureacrats who run one of the finest civil services in the world. This is fundamental to the building of this country. Canada is a model for the world; model of what a community could be; we have to be examplary in the way we as a country handle cases where questions of ethics and conflict of interest (possibly bribary, and influence peddling by major multi national corporationsm)

Here are some of the important issues involved:

* The ethics of decision making in the federal government of Canada
* The multi national corporations influencing decisions that will be profitable to them.
* Canadians in Canada's civil service, their priorities and their allegiance to Canada beyond the organizations they work in. Whistle blowing for Canada and for humanity may the best way of promoting ethics.

We must remember the Holocaust could have been prevented if the bureacrats had raised the relevant ethical questions. That is an extreme case, and by no stretch of imagination am I comparing Canada to Nazi Germany. But we must clearly know which is the wrong road; the road not to take as a country. It is small steps that ...

* Then there are questions of racism in Health Canada, which has been clearly identified by court decisions. We must ensure that racism is not allowed to raise its ugly head again. This must be done in way that is transparent.

As a country we have to create mechanisms that will ensure ethical behaviour of the federal institutions, because these are bases of democracy.

Just wondering, Paul, would you as a union leader welcome co-operation from a group like the COC if all the while the union took the lead in such a fight? I only ask because certainly I`d like to see more unity and solidarity between different unions and organizations such as the COC.

---
Dave Ruston

Absolutely, Dave.

But unions fought long and hard for the rights they have and the legislation that protects those rights. So I while I would always welcome the interest and support of groups like COC, I would like the opportunity to exercise due process first. There is the danger of the union becoming weaker if they can't fight the battles that they should be able to fight; at the same time, they should always know when it's time to ask for help.

Paul

Right on, Paul. Thanks.

---
Dave Ruston

I don't agree with Paul, I think an investigation is called for. The longer you wait before doing something the older the issue gets and the less vital the outcome is viewed as.

Health Canada has tried to fire these individuals before and speaking as a former manager I can tell you that once you are perceived as a trouble maker your days are numbered. We are not dealing with straight shooters we are dealing with fawning pretentious management types who are looking to further their own careers and any blot that appears on the radar during their watches will be dealt with. That is how you get a "rep" as a "can do" guy.

It would be good if the Union had the decisions reversed but I still think an inquiry is called for to ensure that these union members and their peers are not pressured to do shoddy work. The whistle blower legislation was not passed during the last parliamentary session, why do you suppose that is?

The last comment was by Milton. I forgot to sign in.

I understand your point, Milton. But where was COC or some similar group when the head of VIA Rail was turfed? Shouldn't we also have supposed there was something surreptitious about that?

The very cry from the COC for an investigation in this case is tantamount to a declaration that something is fishy. And perhaps there is, but suppose these three employees were let go for reasons utterly unrelated to whistle-blowing; then we have stripped the Union of its opportunity and its obligation to represent the workers' interests.

Don't get me wrong ... I suspect this smells every bit as bad as it seems to smell. But when I was chair of a union I would have felt utterly emasculated to have some third party simply march in to tell me I wasn't competent to deal with a member's grievance. Indeed, I actually resigned my position when our master union tried to do exactly that to our independent bargaining group and I only rescinded the resignation when they agreed to get the hell out of the way unless requested (which, ultimately, they were not).

When people in trouble have appropriate representation, it is good to know there are interested third parties who can help and I applaud the COC for being willing to assist. But a third party to the rescue for what is clearly a political motivation is unwarranted until or unless needed, except where the aggrieved party requests that help. Not only does getting COC involved at this stage obviate the work of the Union, it compromises the employer's right to defend itself in what might be a normal grievance situation. It implies that neither side is competent to deal with this matter fairly and, by extension, points the finger clearly at the 'inept' Union.

Due process is an important concept.

Paul

Paul, I am not saying that the union shouldn't pursue whatever courses it has open to it. I think they should do whatever they think should be done.

This situation differs from what we are usually faced with because our health is at stake. The federal government has continually tried to downplay safeguards and prefers that industry fix whatever mess it has made only if it costs less than what they would have to pay the victims of their sloth.

I think these scientists need to know that rank and file Canadians appreciate their courage and will not let them be sacrificed on the alter of due process. Big business and governments are attacking us on every front and we have to start fighting back at the drop of a hat rather than waiting for the moment when all the due processes and conventions have been observed.

You are right in saying that we don't know the reasons why these scientists were fired. That doesn't mean that we should ignore the past history that we do know. We have no reason to assume that the managers suddenly developed integrity. The only evidence we have is that it is business as usual at the old cronies management club.

I think the issue for me is that the firings and the malfeasance are separate issues. What if these people had NOT been fired? The malfeasance would still be there and still a problem, but there would be no call from the COC.

An investigation of the whole situation is what is needed, not just the relatively minor labour relations problem of these three individuals. I would like to tackle them as separate problems rather than having the issues cloud each other.

I think we ought to go after business and government full bore on this and so many other matters. But just as I wouldn't send the army to arrest a drunk or the police to stop a war, I think we have to let the right people tackle the right parts of the problem at the right times.

Paul

Paul, I agree with what you said here, <p>"<i> I think we have to let the right people tackle the right parts of the problem at the right times". </i> <p>All that remains to be done is to define the parts of the problem so that we don't cloud the various issues.