Whistleblower protection for RCMP but not for CF.

[McG]

Parties differ about who needs protection
Whistle-blower laws to shield civil servants
Calgary Herald
(Printed: Edmonton Journal, 17 Jun 05)
OTTAWA

The federal government, with the support of the three opposition par ties, is looking to push though legislation to create an independent officer that will protect whistle-blowers in the public service from being punished for exposing problems.

A government committee heard Thursday that the new office would be separate from existing federal organizations, and be given the same independence and powers that the federal auditor general has.

However, while all federal parties expressed the need to pass whistle-blower legislation before Parliament breaks for the summer, the Tories and Liberals are divided on whether the RCMP and military should be part of the bill.

The Conservatives want those organizations included in the whistle- blower legislation, but the Liberals said Canada's military and police are unique and must be treated differently than the rest of the public service. Conservative MP Joe Preston said leaving the two groups out of whistle-blower legislation could dissuade employees from raising concerns, fearing retribution from their superiors.

'We don't want to lump them in, but we don't want to exclude them ... so the door won't be closed on them and they're sent back to their commanding officer,â ? said Preston.

Both the military and RCMP organizations have internal whistle-blower mechanisms to deal with concerns raised by employees that can't be made public, the government said.
The whistle-blower legislation is designed to give civil servants assurances they won't lose their jobs, miss out on promotions or be threatened if they bring to light problems with government waste or impropriety.

Can West News Service

Mounties to get whistleblower protection
Commons committee decides police need access to independent office
GRANT ROBERTSON
Calgary Herald
(Printed: Edmonton Journal, 22 Jun 05)
OTTAWA

RCMP officers will be allowed to use the federal government's proposed whistleblower office to raise alarms about wrongdoing inside their ranks, a House of Commons Committee decided Tuesday.

Federal MPs added the RCMP to its new whistleblower legislation after several officers argued Canada's national police force needs an independent office to hear internal concerns.

The legislation, which has received support from all four federal parties, seeks to shield civil servants from punishment, such as losing their jobs, for bringing to light problems inside their organizations.

While the whistleblower bill is eyed at giving bureaucrats protection from being fired if they expose government waste or impropriety, concerns were raised last week the military, the RCMP and Canada's spy agency CSIS, shouldn't be included.

National security concerns and a different culture inside those organizations made them different from the rest of the civil service, the Liberals argued. â Å“In the military chain of command, there's a duty of honour that just complicates and creates different legal requirements,â ? Treasury Board President Reg Alcock said Tuesday. â Å“So the military were quite concerned about that right up and down the ranks.â ?  But the RCMP wasn't opposed to the idea and has approached the government before to handle internal concerns raised by its members.

Tory MP Pierre Poilievre, who argued the military and CSIS should also be offered the same whistleblower protection, said he was pleased RCMP officers are being included.
The committee has heard testimony from RCMP members who told the government such protections are needed for members who come forward with concerns about conduct.
â Å“I'm sure there was a lot of wrong doing within the RCMP that has gone un-reported because people are intimidated,â ? Poilievre said. â Å“This change will allow uniformed RCMP officers to go to a totally independent commissioner and report wrongdoing without fear of revenge. That can only be good for the RCMP and the people that it's meant to serve.â ?

Earlier this month, a former Ottawa Mountie lost a three-year battle for whistleblower protection after a Federal Court ruled the RCMP isn't entitled to give him his job back under existing laws.  Robert Read was suspended in 1999 when he publicly accused the force of covering up allegations of corruption inside Canada's High Commission in Hong Kong.  After Read's discoveries were dismissed, he was told to drop the case. He was later fired in 2002 after being found guilty of professional misconduct for discussing the investigation publicly.

The Liberals first opposed including the RCMP in the new whistleblower legislation, but changed their minds after hearing evidence from witnesses and debate from the Opposition, Alcock said.

As recently as last week, federal MPs hoped they could push the whistle- blower legislation through the House of Commons so that the office could be set up later this year. However ongoing debates have meant the matter will likely be put off until fall.

Can West News Service

 

[Scoobie Newbie]

Thats too bed for ****.
I think the FBI has whistle blower coverage so I see know reason why CSIS shouldn't.   For us as well I suppose.

Don't need names outside the low ground rg

 

[FastEddy]

Thats too bed for ****.
I think the FBI has whistle blower coverage so I see know reason why CSIS shouldn't.   For us as well I suppose.

Don't need names outside the low ground rg

Ahhh! yes, even though they are very usefull, they are still regarded with great
disdain. A snitch is still a snitch. Regardless of what ever High & Mighty reasons they have for betrayal.

And now you want to give anybody Carte Blanche to inform on his Comrades or Partners. There are
Agencies to ferret out Corruption or Incidents. Such protection and encouragement can only spawn
a total air of paranoia and mistrust among those whose very lives depend on that very Trust & Reliability.

If individuals wish to cleanse their souls of someones misdeeds, by all means let them. And then what
happens, happens.

Just truthfully answer this, If a Police Officer of your Station ratted out his Partner (for what ever reason),
then was assigned to you as your new Partner, yeah ! great feeling.

 

[McG]

And now you want to give anybody Carte Blanch to inform on his Comrades or Partners. There are Agencies to ferret out Corruption or Incidents. Such protection and encouragement can only spawn a total air of paranoia and mistrust among those whose very lives depend on that very Trust & Reliability.

So, you believe it is more important that police & service personnel can trust their peers & subordinates to hide their failures of ethics or their negligence to perform duties?

. . . I suppose you would agree that any Liberal that knew of the ad-scam would have been right in not brining it public sooner?

 

[FastEddy]

So, you believe it is more important that police & service personnel can trust their peers & subordinates to hide their failures of ethics or their negligence to perform duties?

. . . I suppose you would agree that any Liberal that knew of the ad-scam would have been right in not brining it public sooner?

Well my ethical friend, just answer my question on the Partner issue, then I'll take up the Political
Correctness issue.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Just truthfully answer this, If a Police Officer of your Station ratted out his Partner (for what ever reason),
then was assigned to you as your new Partner, yeah ! great feeling.

Well my ethical friend, just answer my question on the Partner issue, then I'll take up the Political
Correctness issue.

Generally, the answer to that question has been stated many times across the forums and in everyday life. "If your not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about".

 

[KevinB]

Well my ethical friend, just answer my question on the Partner issue, then I'll take up the Political
Correctness issue.

:

WTF, no wonder the MP's have such a stellar investigation record

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

Quote from Fast Eddy,
Just truthfully answer this, If a Police Officer of your Station ratted out his Partner (for what ever reason),
then was assigned to you as your new Partner, yeah ! great feeling.

Hey, I work in one of the most "solid" organizations there is and if "the reason" jepordized  the security of the institution, then ...tweeeeet!

 

[Scoobie Newbie]

Serpico.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

:

WTF, no wonder the MP's have such a stellar investigation record

Yup! Gives me a new amount of respect for them too! :   No wonder they get such a lousy rep. They want us to trust them and they can't even trust themselves.

Way to go Fast Eddy, you've probably done more to damage your trade in two statements than all the snowcones have by writing tickets.

 

[FastEddy]

Yup! Gives me a new amount of respect for them too! :   No wonder they get such a lousy rep. They want us to trust them and they can't even trust themselves.

Way to go Fast Eddy, you've probably done more to damage your trade in two statements than all the snowcones have by writing tickets.

It never ceases to amaze me the amount of misinterpretation of quotes on this Forum at times. I've
noticed a tendency for people to reply, that seems to indicate they haven't read the quote, grasped
the single essence of it, read their own bias interpretation into it and at times use it to attack or take
cheapshots.

In this case, THE LEAGLIZATION - PROTECTION - ENCOURAGEMENT - REWARDING in my opinion would
be a bad idea, we fought a HOT War and a COLD War which embraced these principles, maybe if you had
lived under such events your views might be slightly different.

No where did I mention that the discovery of a Crime or Serious Breech of Wrong doing not be reported,
but if there are re-procussions, that is the course you have made, then play the course.
_
If you so wish to turn my question of New Partner around, you still haven't answered it, but I doubt if I
would get a truthfull reply anyway.

If you disagree with my opinion, buy all means do so, but this does not give you the License to incorporate
any other group or Branch of the Service

As for your remark implying that my opinion and comments should reflect on the whole of the
Military Police to substantiate your already poor regard of them. In this matter I would expect nothing less
than a Open Apology to this Branch of the Service.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Your the one that inferred no one would want to work with an ethical partner. You wear it. If the majority here think that's not what you meant, I'll stand corrected.

 

[McG]

No where did I mention that the discovery of a Crime or Serious Breech of Wrong doing not be reported,
but if there are re-procussions, that is the course you have made, then play the course.

So, in your veiw, people should expose criminal activity, gross violations or morality, dangerous negligance, etc.  However, you also think it would be fair for their careers to be punished for bringing this forward?

Just truthfully answer this, If a Police Officer of your Station ratted out his Partner (for what ever reason),
then was assigned to you as your new Partner, yeah ! great feeling.

I'd find it easier to trust a wistleblower than the crook(s) that he made public.

 

[KevinB]

FastEddy - you will get no appology from me...


AND it appears I am not the only one that read it that way.

 

[Scoobie Newbie]

Were is the reward for whistle blowing.   Ridicule from your peers, disdain, threats.   For anyone to blow the whistle the offense would be large enough to risk the above and would also probably not be the first time offenses were committed.   Sometimes I think allowing an organization to police its own does more harm then good and airing out your dirty laundry for all to see can be a cleansing thing.   I'd rather be thought of as a rat who came home off the range in one piece then to let some clown high as a kite skate under the radar.

Hey Kev ever hear "I may not have the rank but I have the authority".  



Couldn't find the handle on a coffee cup.

 

[KevinB]

I notice MP's are fond of "don't confuse your rank with my authority..." 

Wity 031 retort - Don't mistake your authority for rank... 

 

[FastEddy]

Your the one that inferred no one would want to work with an ethical partner. You wear it. If the majority here think that's not what you meant, I'll stand corrected.

Since you are the only one with a reasonable comprehension of the substance of my objection to the
Legalization of Protection for Informants, I will do you the courtesy of clarifying my meanings and
remarks.

In the matter of "New Partner", I did not state that I would not work with him, but how would you feel ?.
Maybe I'm alone marching to this drummer, But I would always be looking over my shoulder. (not that I'd
be doing anything wrong), but by what yardstick does this Chap measure a wrong doing by and might he
have a personal agenda.

Many a well intensional laws have a uncanny way of coming back and turning into monsters or at least
loopholes against the very things they were designed for. I feel that the Law in question would start off
well intentional but could be used through manipulation to create a Society of Informers in all walks of life.

As for those perfect, righteous, politically correct and Puritans who would never think of taking the odd role of Scotch tape home from the office,drive over 20km in a School Zone,drive 75k in a 55k,take a 30min break
instead of 15,forget to give back over change of $10.00 to a cashier,dump they car ashtrays in the parking
lot,spit or discard wrappers on a public sidewalk,creative reporting on tax returns,padding expense & taxi
receipts.Has his buddy watch out while he grabs 30winks on guard duty at 0200, So don,t you think a person who does even a quarter of these things should be reported and punished. Ridiculous you say, or do we use a yardstick to measure the severity, after all a crime is a crime, So your best Buddy decides he just
can't stand your inappropriate behavior and turns you in. Well good for him, he'll still be your best Buddy
after you get out of the Stockade. So hence don't, wish for a Law, you might get more than you wished
for.

For CFL, Rewards you say, Ridicule, Disdain and Threats, I wonder why that is. For coming home alive in
which the circumstances you give as an example are highly unlikely please you can do better than that, but your reasoning sounds pretty self-serving.

Again certain members are using this opportunity to take shots at the Military Police, well I guess thats
par for the course.

KevinB, I don't remember asking for any apology for myself or opinions, but I did find it objectable that
they should reflect on the MP Branch as a whole. If you are finding it difficult to distingwish between my personal opinions and the opinions and attitudes of the MP Branch, I suggest you might consult one of your
learned colleagues to explain it to you.

Recceguy, I apologize for using the latter part of this quote to you for addressing other matters and Members.

 

[Scoobie Newbie]

If getting a guy off the range for being under ANY influence is self serving consider me guilty.  I've never been in the situation to contemplate turning a guy in but if he is a danger to me or troops around me I'll have him sorted out in a second and that's any rank.  Whether it be a Section commander who wants to take his patrol through a known minefield or a WO that's a lush and over stepping his bounds.  I'll follow the chain and have it dealt with.
As far as picking on the MP's well it may be par for the course because your comments reflect certain steriotypes that have been formed through the years.  We all have a job to do and I know people think of MP's in a certain way probably without evening knowing them.  I am friends with two myself and I hope they haven't changed that much since rebadging.

 

[Aegis]

I don't post on here often but this particular topic has a special interest to me and I definitely understand how it may have an interest to Kevin B.

Fast Eddy - Your argument against this type of protection for CF members seems absurd. The US army has had protections for whistleblowers since 23 Jun 2000 (Directive Number: 7050.6) which augments a 12 Aug 1995 directive. I was unable to find any supporting data for your claims that this has resulted in an increase in punishments for what may be less severe infractions.

Your assertion that, should this protection exist, members would be punished for,

         

"taking the odd role of Scotch tape home from the office,drive over 20km in a School     
            Zone,drive 75k in  a 55k,take a 30min break instead of 15,forget to give back over change of 
            $10.00 to a cashier,dump they car ashtrays in the parking lot,spit or discard wrappers on a public
            sidewalk,creative reporting on tax returns,padding expense & taxi receipts.Has his buddy watch 
            out while he grabs 30winks on guard duty at 0200"

has no basis in fact or reality. It is in fact emotional and an argument based on an appeal to fear of punishment but doesn't debate the actual issue.


Furthermore your preface of this statement with,

"As for those perfect, righteous, politically correct and Puritans who would never think of..."

is an Ad Hominem argument and particularly inflammatory as it attacks your debaters and not the topic.

As to your question, about how would I feel about serving with someone like that the answer is I would feel good. Here I would be serving with a person who would be willing to sacrifice personal comfort for doing what they believe, and society has indicated, is the right thing. To me this would be a sign of integrity. All of the things you listed as minor infractions that a person would have to all of a sudden be worried about being punished for have their purpose. Do any of us ever follow these rules 100% of the time? No. We are however showing ourselves to be conscientious and unselfish individuals when we attempt to follow them, and if on those times we fail someone reminds us to, "Slow down in a school zone.", perhaps the safety of those children is more important than my desire to break a well intentioned rule.

As to this,

"If you are finding it difficult to distingwish between my personal opinions and the opinions and attitudes of the MP Branch, I suggest you might consult one of your
learned colleagues to explain it to you."

the forum moderators, specifically Mike Bobbitt have explained very clearly that when a post is made here we represent more than ourselves. I particularly like the example given by Mike so I will use it here,

"So before you post, imagine you're in uniform, talking to a room full of the press, 14 year old kids, your CO, and your grandmother."

here your post does represet yourself but it also represents the MP branch and the CF as a whole.

  Please excuse the length of this post. As this topic provides a check and balance for those with information versus those with power I find this topic very important.

 

[FastEddy]

If getting a guy off the range for being under ANY influence is self serving consider me guilty.   I've never been in the situation to contemplate turning a guy in but if he is a danger to me or troops around me I'll have him sorted out in a second and that's any rank.   Whether it be a Section commander who wants to take his patrol through a known minefield or a WO that's a lush and over stepping his bounds.   I'll follow the chain and have it dealt with.
As far as picking on the MP's well it may be par for the course because your comments reflect certain steriotypes that have been formed through the years.   We all have a job to do and I know people think of MP's in a certain way probably without evening knowing them.   I am friends with two myself and I hope they haven't changed that much since rebadging.

Well I guess your superiors should walk softly around you. As for the circumstances you list, the possibility of
them occurring are so remote and so removed from the nature of Military Training its hard to even imagine.

From your comments one could guess that Discipline has eroded beyond repair. As for RSM's & WO's, being
dealt with from a complaint from a Jr.NCO, things sure must have changed.

With regard to the unpopularity of any Law Enforce Agency, are usually centered around Myth, Exaggeration, Ignorance, Dislike of Authority and by the perpetuity of those Hostel sentiments by people much like your-self. Even though it is offensive, it is received without prejudice with the knowledge of where its coming from.