 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
PDF version of this Page | Word version of this page RebuttalsTransport Canada executives have used several documents and analysis to attack me and my report of wrongdoing. These are linked and rebutted below. Transport Canada managers put up five main lines of argument through these documents:
I invite you to draw your own conclusions. ContentsLaureen Kinney's Preliminary Analysis of My Report
Laureen Kinney's Preliminary Analysis of My ReportOn or about December 18, 2006, Laureen Kinney, then Director General Marine Security at Transport Canada, prepared a "preliminary analysis" of the concerns I raised in my report.
I will not conduct a point by point rebuttal of Ms. Kinney's analysis, as this would take too much space, but will make a few comments on her approach and conclusions. Conflict of Interest and BiasI will begin, however, by noting the inappropriateness of the analysis being conducted by an individual implicated in wrongdoing and mismanagement. Louis Ranger and Marc Grégoire, Ms. Kinney's supervisors, should have known that this was inappropriate and that it represented a conflict of interest. Ms. Kinney was, in effect, given free reign to construct any narrative she wished to defend herself, without concern that it would be refuted. Ms. Kinney should also have recognized this conflict of interest and removed herself. Her bias in conducting the analysis is quickly evident in her highly charged and emotional narrative. Unfortunately, I believe that this analysis was used to represent me as malicious and wrong-headed in all respects, and to disuade outside agencies from taking a closer look at my concerns. Main ArgumentsAs with other analyses, Ms. Kinney addresses just a few points. These include the development of the regulations, representations of outside analysis as supporting her views, my efforts to address problems and the qualifications of management. Her representation of the development of the regulations suggests that I agreed wholeheartedly with the approach (that is, basically copying U.S. regulations) and that I condemn it just as wholeheartedly in my report. Neither is true. I simply observed that there was no method or formal justification made for the approach. Rather, I noted that it might have seemed the best solution for time. My concerns were that there had been no formal assessment of alternatives, that regulatory gaps were produced as a result, that the gaps weren't being addressed, and that the haphazard approach was still being used. One area she focuses on is the development of regulations for domestic ferries. I criticized management for not closing this gap, and Ms. Kinney responded by insisting that "substantive work with stakeholders on the domestic ferry file have been completed, including development of risk assessment methodology and near completed assessment of most major facilities in Canada." This is a misleading representation on a number of levels. Rather, domestic ferry regulations were not as far along as she indicates, as established by a panicked e-mail to my new employer, Government Consulting Services, requesting an extremely rushed cost-benefit analysis for the regulations. Such an analysis needs to be conducted before a decision is made whether to develop regulations, so is essentially a first step. This e-mail was sent within weeks after my report of wrongdoing.
Her comments about independent analysis stating that they support her arguments is not substantiated by the actual reports she quotes. Rather, she "cherry-picks" quotes. A full analysis of the reports can be found below. With respect to my attempts to address problems previously, I believe that my event summary provides the best rebuttal. Finally, I admit that I was wrong about the educational qualifications of Transport Canada managers and apologize for doing so. It was done in error, and not out of malice. Rather, my comments were intended to speak to a select number of officials who lack the competence to make sound judgments on marine security matters, and would therefore also not now know that they were making poor judgements. They would also lack the metacognitive skills to review their own performance accurately. Transport Canada's 2007 statement of defenceTransport Canada's statement of defence, filed in response to my statement of claim, is a combination of irrelevant materials and falsehoods. In particular, much content on international frameworks and processes followed is added in an effort to provide a semblance of credibility to the document.
Again, it would take up too much space to make a point by point rebuttal, although I will focus on some areas. Much is made of how I should have used other mechanisms to raise complaints. I believe that my summary of events provides adequate evidence to establish that I did try other methods and that they were corrupted. Paragraph 44 indicates that I should have used the Office of the Public Service integrity Commissioner to make a report of wrongdoing, when in fact her office was not yet constituted. In any event, this misses the point: I had now reported wrongdoing, and they had an obligation to investigate it. The reasoning is used, I believe, to suggest wrongdoing on my part. Management denies having seen any complaints of harassment from employees. This claim is absurd, as my event summary demonstrates. Much effort is also made to describe me as a threatening person. Such accusations were also levelled at Saïd Nassif, the former Director of Operations. The statement of defence describes the Deloitte and Touche investigation as neutral and comprehensive when, in fact, it was nothing of the sort. My criticisms of that report can be read below. Deloitte and Touche ReportDeloitte and Touche was quickly engaged after I published my report of wrongdoing. The terms of reference for the contract were restricted so as to avoid looking into the soundness of the marine security regulatory and enforcement framework, the inappropriate acceptance of gifts, relationships between key stakeholders and department staff, or the dysfunction in the Marine Security Directorate.
Briefly, Deloitte and Touche conducted a superficial investigation which focussed primarily on my actions. The methodology included fewer than 20 interviews, mainly of implicated officials whose evidence was given more weight than others, and a thorough examination of my e-mails. Nobody else's actions was subjected to the same scrutiny as mine. Specific CriticismsFirst, there is a strong emphasis on investigating in areas where management feels it is in the best position, for example:
It is important to note that I did not dispute that a divergence from policy might be necessary, but rather that I was concerned that it was done without formal consideration of alternatives and that the practice was being continued. This is not mentioned in the report. Second, the investigation into use of travel and training was superficial in the extreme. I have retrieved documents which show that Joanne St-Onge regularly used taxi services (paid for by public funds) for personal reasons. In addition, it is also evident that travel records and justifications were not examined beyond the three examples I gave. Ms. St-Onge's use of travel is obviously far more extensive than other executives by evidence of sheer volume of pages received, for example. In any event, I still maintain that it is inappropriate for an executive to receive training in basic leadership skills paid for by the public funds. Such skills should be, by definition, in place before reaching the job. Third, the investigation into staffing practices appears to find irregularities that support my assertions, but this is only evident by inference from omitted passages and references to "baselines" not being set. It also misses the point that Mr. Frappier, who coordinated Ms. St-Onge's hiring and sat on her board, was an admitted friend of Ms. St-Onge.
Fourth, it would have been a simple matter to conduct a gap analysis of Transport Canada's marine security regime and international standards. Indeed, this is what best practices suggest should happen. I believe this was not done, and has not yet been done, to avoid putting flaws in the system on record. Fifth, the depth to which Deloitte and Touche examined my e-mails while not conducting similar investigations into other individuals implicated in my report makes it clear that I am the real subject of the investigation and that the objective is to damage me, not get to root causes of problems in the organization. Sixth, the investigation fails to include the findings of the Public Service Labour Relations Board (PSLRB) "Workplace Health Initiative", which found not only mismanagement but harassment. Page 10 is particularly interesting.
Other ReportsTwo other reports have been prepared evaluating marine security. One was conducted by the Office of the Auditor General of Canada in 2005. This report found that Transport Canada had implemented regulations for marine security, but made no findings about their effectiveness or enforcement. In December of 2006, Transport Canada also published a report on its marine security initiatives. This evaluation was conducted by Transport Canada program evaluation staff and was primarily based on interviews with individuals selected by Transport Canada management. As a result, the findings were favourable. The evaluation was fundamentally flawed as it did not:
Despite this very friendly evaluation framework, the conclusions were weak: "...the Evaluation Team concludes that some positive results are being achieved for the marine security investments made by TC." It also made some telling comments that support my findings:
Joanne St-Onge's DyslexiaIt was not my intention to bring Ms. St-Onge's learning disability into debate as a result of my report of wrongdoing, but, as Transport Canada executives have made much use of it in an effort to characterize me a malicious, I feel that I have no choice. For the record, I make no mention of Ms. St-Onge's dyslexia in my report. I only comment on her competence and reading level. In addition, I do not recall her ever telling me that she had had her reading level assessed to the grade 5-6 level, and that it was due to her dyslexia. I do not recall her telling me she had dyslexia, in fact. Rather, I reached my assessment of her reading level using my experience and training as a teacher. A quick survey of my resume will show that I have taught literacy to children, that I have taught English as a second language, and that I have a Master's degree in education, focussing on measurement and evaluation. I have also spent a number of years developing educational materials for the Internet, something that required me to adjust language according to the target audience's reading level. I am thus very qualified to assess Ms. St-Onge's reading ability, contrary to assertions by Mr. Frappier and Ms. Kinney. It is interesting to note, however, that the professional assessment agrees with mine. This is not an issue of disability. Rather, it is one of ability to perform the job. Based on the observations of my team, Mr. Nassif and others, she was not able to read or process information from disparate sources in an appropriate time. This resulted in decision paralysis and earned her office the nickname "the black hole" as no report or communication entering it ever seemed to come out. Unfortunately, Ms. St-Onge responded to the criticism and suggestions for solutions (e.g. delegating some decision-making) from me and others with inaction or hostility. Ultimately, she drove me, Mr. Nassif and a number of other individuals out of the organization. That this was facilitated and/or ignored by senior executives such as Mr. Frappier, Ms. Kinney and Mr. Grégoire helped to send the message that no dissent will be tolerated in Transport Canada and that employees have no right to criticise the conduct or performance of those higher in the hierarchy, no matter how serious the public interest issue at stake. This, in turn, could suggest to individuals with strong convictions that the safest way to raise concerns is outside the department. Indeed, such was my belief. |
