PDA

View Full Version : Harper gagging Scientific community...



Curly1
09-08-2014, 07:24 AM
What's up with the CPC gagging scientists?

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/carol-linnitt/war-on-science-canada_b_5775054.html

RobSmith
09-08-2014, 07:42 AM
Well the report is obviously comissioned by French unions so it has to be taken with a couple of truckloads of salt. It is true that the "gravy train" has somewhat been reduced when it comes to six-figure salaried government "scientists" that tend to either study oddball things that in this economy we can't afford to support, or are involved in projects that are redundants ie: similar "research" is being done somewhere else. As far as the "gagging" is concerned, I think it's more of a situation where they are told that while govt will leave science to scientists, scientists should leave politics (and policy) to politicians.

Edenchef
09-08-2014, 07:43 AM
Quick question..........maybe this is article is designed to stir up the sheeple, after years of milking the public. The scientific community has really destroyed their credibility with me, in recent years by supporting the "global warming" hysteria and gagging any dissenting opinions. JMHO

Cheers!

Strewth
09-08-2014, 08:54 AM
Government funded scientists, like all federal employees, sign a value and ethics code (http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/pol/doc-eng.aspx?section=text&id=25049) just like all public servants, where they agree they won't speak out against the government or it's policies while under their employment. They know this going in, it's been this way for a long time.

I assume sour grapes over funding cuts....on said cuts I've read some articles about how these cuts are trimming the fat (pork), but when I Google it all I get are pages of the CBC and The Star screaming about how Darth Harper is dragging us back to the stone age. I'll try to find a couple that are unbiased; I remember one that seemed fair from an ex-employee talking about how they wished there were more admin cuts than "front line" cuts, but the cuts made sense in the grand scheme of the de-bunking of global warming and such.

stevebc
09-08-2014, 10:07 AM
What's up with the CPC gagging scientists?

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/carol-linnitt/war-on-science-canada_b_5775054.html

You read an article from the PuffHo and believed it?

killer kane
09-08-2014, 11:28 AM
You read an article from the PuffHo and believed it?

This!!!!

Curly1
09-08-2014, 11:51 AM
No real conversion on the subject guys? I can find other sources, not just huff and puff to quote, just wondering why the big push to stop and hush up science, too much damage to the CPC big business friends or ????

conger
09-08-2014, 12:19 PM
Because there is nothing to talk about. Another stupid waste of time on climate change. Only one problem. The climate hasn't changed. The earth's temp hasn't changed by even 1 in a century.
Oh chicken Little the sky is falling. Blah blah blah.

harbl_the_cat
09-08-2014, 12:24 PM
You read an article from the PuffHo and believed it?

This x2

HuffPo = Socialist Propaganda Rag.

Strewth
09-08-2014, 12:25 PM
No real conversion on the subject guys? I can find other sources, not just huff and puff to quote, just wondering why the big push to stop and hush up science, too much damage to the CPC big business friends or ????

Well. it's just like I said; scientists with federal grants are government employees, and not allowed to talk bad about the government, or government policies (such as telling climate change fear-mongers to take a hike) while employed by them. The icing on the cake was that sharp-eyed cuts are being made to scientific research, and the tenured are screaming about it.

HenryLung
09-08-2014, 12:39 PM
This x2

HuffPo = Socialist Propaganda Rag.


:agree:

Curly1
09-08-2014, 01:00 PM
Well. it's just like I said; scientists with federal grants are government employees, and not allowed to talk bad about the government, or government policies (such as telling climate change fear-mongers to take a hike) while employed by them. The icing on the cake was that sharp-eyed cuts are being made to scientific research, and the tenured are screaming about it.

I understand the employee thing and agree, just wondering why such a hard line to gag them now and cut back on the use of science.

matty86suk
09-08-2014, 01:34 PM
Well. it's just like I said; scientists with federal grants are government employees, and not allowed to talk bad about the government, or government policies (such as telling climate change fear-mongers to take a hike) while employed by them. The icing on the cake was that sharp-eyed cuts are being made to scientific research, and the tenured are screaming about it.

Well there is talking bad about the government and then there is publishing values extrapolated using scientific methods.

BruceW
09-08-2014, 01:41 PM
Since all our gov't payed scientists are extremely entitled, there is NO list of who's studying what, really as most think no one else could do it. Subsequently there is at any given moment multiples of the exact same studies going on at our expense. Complete waste and literally no way for anyone to access the findings to put to practical use, despite our taxes funding the studies.

Discovered this decades ago when researching crop diseases. As with most gov't agencies and their leeches, I've no doubt we could cut the number of scientists employed by a large percentage with absolutely no difference in results or gains.

I seriously doubt there is any cutting back on, "science". Much more likely cutting back on dead weight. Far as the, "gaging them", most likely union doublespeak to hide the real issue for them: possibly having to actually do something constructive and produce something worth researching or look for another job.

Surely you've all heard of things like the famous study to see which ketchup poured slower? Truth be known if what was being researched were known there'd likely be a public outcry to cut back on, "science".

Strewth
09-08-2014, 01:54 PM
Well there is talking bad about the government and then there is publishing values extrapolated using scientific methods.

Very true, but I don't think this has been shown to be the case, yet? Could be wrong.

Curly1
09-08-2014, 03:15 PM
Since all our gov't payed scientists are extremely entitled, there is NO list of who's studying what, really as most think no one else could do it. Subsequently there is at any given moment multiples of the exact same studies going on at our expense. Complete waste and literally no way for anyone to access the findings to put to practical use, despite our taxes funding the studies.

Discovered this decades ago when researching crop diseases. As with most gov't agencies and their leeches, I've no doubt we could cut the number of scientists employed by a large percentage with absolutely no difference in results or gains.

I seriously doubt there is any cutting back on, "science". Much more likely cutting back on dead weight. Far as the, "gaging them", most likely union doublespeak to hide the real issue for them: possibly having to actually do something constructive and produce something worth researching or look for another job.

Surely you've all heard of things like the famous study to see which ketchup poured slower? Truth be known if what was being researched were known there'd likely be a public outcry to cut back on, "science".

So, not so much gagging as eliminating waste? Makes better sense than ignoring the need for science or trying to mute the research.

BruceW
09-08-2014, 03:36 PM
That's just my guess, but I suspect it's a good one. For example and what I was alluding to, I contacted the local ag research stn, could only access what they were actually doing there; they had no idea what was being researched at any other ag research stn's(even those less than 60 miles away). Couldn't believe it, they didn't even trust each others data so rather than complimenting each other and capitalizing on each others research for further research, they all chose to stumble around blind with our tax money.

Unless that's changed there's definitely lot's of room for cuts.

ReignCzech
09-08-2014, 03:44 PM
Well the report is obviously comissioned by French unions so it has to be taken with a couple of truckloads of salt. It is true that the "gravy train" has somewhat been reduced when it comes to six-figure salaried government "scientists" that tend to either study oddball things that in this economy we can't afford to support, or are involved in projects that are redundants ie: similar "research" is being done somewhere else. As far as the "gagging" is concerned, I think it's more of a situation where they are told that while govt will leave science to scientists, scientists should leave politics (and policy) to politicians.


Government funded scientists, like all federal employees, sign a value and ethics code (http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/pol/doc-eng.aspx?section=text&id=25049) just like all public servants, where they agree they won't speak out against the government or it's policies while under their employment. They know this going in, it's been this way for a long time.

I assume sour grapes over funding cuts....on said cuts I've read some articles about how these cuts are trimming the fat (pork), but when I Google it all I get are pages of the CBC and The Star screaming about how Darth Harper is dragging us back to the stone age. I'll try to find a couple that are unbiased; I remember one that seemed fair from an ex-employee talking about how they wished there were more admin cuts than "front line" cuts, but the cuts made sense in the grand scheme of the de-bunking of global warming and such.

^^ this you guys.

one acronym:
DRDC

all under gag orders as terms of service and contract.
go take your rv or trailer for a nice drive to camp at suffield AB, see how far you can get onto or around facilities.

Curly1
09-08-2014, 04:40 PM
:confused:

Edenchef
09-08-2014, 04:53 PM
I do love the tactic Huffy P uses, to try and legitimize the article. "gained celebrity attention from the likes of actress Evangeline Lilly." Question.......who the H__l is Evangeline Lily and what are her "scientific" credentials. JMHO

Cheers!

conger
09-08-2014, 05:28 PM
I do love the tactic Huffy P uses, to try and legitimize the article. "gained celebrity attention from the likes of actress Evangeline Lilly." Question.......who the H__l is Evangeline Lily and what are her "scientific" credentials. JMHO

Cheers!
She costarred in the "Lost" series. Don't know if anything since then. I thought celebrities were experts in all this kind of thing according to the media.

RangeBob
09-08-2014, 06:06 PM
You read an article from the PuffHo and believed it?

They get the date right every single day.

Foxer
09-08-2014, 07:05 PM
They get the date right every single day.
i'm pretty sure they outsource that :)

Foxer
09-08-2014, 07:44 PM
I think basically there's a couple factors at work. One without a doubt is the need to balance the budget in tough economic times. And that probably is true for most of the countries being mentioned. You can justify funding work that is likely to result in economic activity because that means more taxes. But research for the sake of research probably takes a bit of a hit during tough times.

I think the second fact is that governments generally don't like to lose control of the message. Scientists always believe that their work is of extreme importance and have their own take as to where the nation should be prioritizing. That is often at odds with what the government believes the priorities should be. If scientists are standing up and demanding that something be a priority that the government doesn't then it becomes a media circus. Some of that is quite legitimate. Scientists are paid to do scientific work, not to grandstand about whatever their personal philosophies are or what they think priority should be. Some of it of course is also just political. Governments don't want people drawing attention to issues that they don't want to deal with at the moment.

The work should be available to people. And my understanding is that for the most part it is. If somebody wants to read the papers and then comment on the data they can do so. And if they need the information for some reason they have it. But the fact is is that many people are in jobs where they are not allowed to discuss the details of their work and they are not hired to discuss the details of their work.

As far as budget cuts go when the government has to decide what to slash and it's got a choice between welfare payments to the provinces or more research on the hairy spotted horny toad it's pretty obvious which is going to get cut first. If you're talking about thousands of scientists, each of which probably cost the government somewhere around $150,000 in wages, and cost associated with keeping their work going, you're talking about hundreds of millions of dollars. At a time when the government is trying to balance their books or in the case of some governments trying desperately to avoid additional spirals into deficit that's a lot of money.

Of course they're going to complain. The CBC complain when it's funding got cut too. But I don't see this as a national catastrophe. And terms like "war on science" is exactly the kind of public fear mongering and over emotive phrase that the government is trying to avoid and probably should be avoided.

killer kane
09-08-2014, 07:47 PM
But, but, who would the turdlet confer with on all things scientific? And that being said curly, no, there is no conspiracy, or the evil Harper, looking for babies to eat. And all angry Tom wants to do is bicycle....The lilturdo, he wants door locks and his daddy's gun.:pot:

Foxer
09-08-2014, 11:38 PM
But, but, who would the turdlet confer with on all things scientific?

Magic 8 ball. Same as always. Hey - he paid good money for that.

Curly1
09-09-2014, 09:06 AM
I think basically there's a couple factors at work. One without a doubt is the need to balance the budget in tough economic times. And that probably is true for most of the countries being mentioned. You can justify funding work that is likely to result in economic activity because that means more taxes. But research for the sake of research probably takes a bit of a hit during tough times.

I think the second fact is that governments generally don't like to lose control of the message. Scientists always believe that their work is of extreme importance and have their own take as to where the nation should be prioritizing. That is often at odds with what the government believes the priorities should be. If scientists are standing up and demanding that something be a priority that the government doesn't then it becomes a media circus. Some of that is quite legitimate. Scientists are paid to do scientific work, not to grandstand about whatever their personal philosophies are or what they think priority should be. Some of it of course is also just political. Governments don't want people drawing attention to issues that they don't want to deal with at the moment.

The work should be available to people. And my understanding is that for the most part it is. If somebody wants to read the papers and then comment on the data they can do so. And if they need the information for some reason they have it. But the fact is is that many people are in jobs where they are not allowed to discuss the details of their work and they are not hired to discuss the details of their work.

As far as budget cuts go when the government has to decide what to slash and it's got a choice between welfare payments to the provinces or more research on the hairy spotted horny toad it's pretty obvious which is going to get cut first. If you're talking about thousands of scientists, each of which probably cost the government somewhere around $150,000 in wages, and cost associated with keeping their work going, you're talking about hundreds of millions of dollars. At a time when the government is trying to balance their books or in the case of some governments trying desperately to avoid additional spirals into deficit that's a lot of money.

Of course they're going to complain. The CDC complain when it's funding got cut too. But I don't see this as a national catastrophe. And terms like "war on science" is exactly the kind of public fear mongering and over emotive phrase that the government is trying to avoid and probably should be avoided.

Great rebuttal. Nice to see debate instead of bashing the source. Thank you.

Curly1
09-09-2014, 09:09 AM
But, but, who would the turdlet confer with on all things scientific? And that being said curly, no, there is no conspiracy, or the evil Harper, looking for babies to eat. And all angry Tom wants to do is bicycle....The lilturdo, he wants door locks and his daddy's gun.:pot:

How is this debate? I don't see calling someone names being constructive. Is this the kind of attitude we want the public to see?

conger
09-09-2014, 09:14 AM
How is this debate? I don't see calling someone names being contructive.
Tha Trudeau's have never been friends of the Firearms community or western provinces so there will be a certain amount of animosity that slips out.
Besides JT brings a lot of it on himself with the way he is on many issues.
We're not much into sugar coating here.

Foxer
09-09-2014, 09:20 AM
We're not much into sugar coating here.
True. Sometimes we're flakes, but we're never frosted flakes :)

Foxer
09-09-2014, 09:33 AM
Great rebuttal. Nice to see debate instead of bashing the source. Thank you.

You're welcome :)

It's important to remember that in tough times, gov'ts cut. Even in good times gov'ts sometimes cut if their philosophy is that taxes should be kept to a minimum, but in tough times it ceases to be an option.

And everyone who relies on that funding is guaranteed to be of the absolute belief that the work they were doing was of vital and irreplaceable benefit to our society. And when their funding is cut, they will always cry to the heavens that a horrible injustice has been inflicted upon the land by robbing honest citizens of THEIR critical works.

We saw this when the gov't cut funding for legal action on womens issues (brilliant - that's where the gov't pays to get itself sued :) ), we saw this when the CBC got it's funding cut. We see it with any cuts to foreign aid. We see it everywhere there's cuts, and now the scientists are screaming. And they're twice as mad because the gov't forbids them to stand up and cry to the media about how horrible the cuts are and how civilization is now going to end as we know it and it's all the gov'ts fault, and how the fact that the gov't isn't spending MORE money on their issue will cripple the world and leave future generations diminished.

And also remember - scientists who get their names in the paper and gain some noteriety tend to have opportunity to make more money, people buy their books and papers, people invite them to speak at important events (usually with honorariums which are often tax free) and so on. They don't like that they're denied that as well. AND - if they WERE allowed to speak in public they could get people all worked up over their issues so that the people would pressure the gov't for more spending on their projects.

I mean, I get it. Not being allowed to speak out means they make less money, it's harder to get funding, they have less notoriety. And losing funding means they're out of a job or can't continue the work they think is important. That's not hard to understand.

But - is that REALLY a crisis for Canada? It is sad to lose some of that research - all knowledge is good. But if we don't have the cash for it right now then we don't have the cash.

In many cases I know private funds have become available. That famous fish research center they mention - that actually didn't get shut down, the gov't still provided some funding and other groups stepped up and provided the rest. So - it's still in operation. But, this is something the left wing has never really gotten their heads around - there is only so much money. And just like real people, gov'ts have to decide where they're going to cut if there's a shortfall.

For real people, you might like hbo and the movie channel and such, but if you have to take a pay cut or get laid off, you might have to live with basic cable and torrent downloads for a while :)

killer kane
09-09-2014, 11:27 AM
Tha Trudeau's have never been friends of the Firearms community or western provinces so there will be a certain amount of animosity that slips out.
Besides JT brings a lot of it on himself with the way he is on many issues.
We're not much into sugar coating here.

Unfortunately, that's about as seriously I can take this thread, the above quote pretty much spells out why. Also Harper is not to blame for every ill that happens to take place on this ball in space.

Curly1
09-09-2014, 01:41 PM
Unfortunately, that's about as seriously I can take this thread, the above quote pretty much spells out why. Also Harper is not to blame for every ill that happens to take place on this ball in space.

At no time were the Trudeau's or firearms meant to be discussed, so I am confused by the comments.

I posted this article, as I was curious to see if anyone of the many Harper supporters on this site were able to defend the position being taken as discussed by "liberal leaning" article. I am alarmed at the number of these "liberal leaning" sources, being meet with childish name calling instead of meaningful responses, that are properly articulated and completely defensible (thank you Foxer for a ray of hope).

Doug_M
09-09-2014, 01:53 PM
Also Harper is not to blame for every ill that happens to take place on this ball in space.

C'mon! Harper is evil! First it was his secret hidden agenda, now he's bad for democracy. I mean really, name one good thing he has done for this country since taking office, just one!? (I'm kidding of course, but that is what I hear and read all the time).

Doug_M
09-09-2014, 01:55 PM
I am alarmed at the number of these "liberal leaning" sources, being meet with childish name calling instead of meaningful responses, that are properly articulated and completely defensible (thank you Foxer for a ray of hope).

It is just a natural reaction by many (me included) after years of garbage being spewed by the left-leaning media. Honestly I'd love for there to be an unbiased news source we could go to but Canada doesn't have that, at least not on the national level. While I enjoy Sun News just for the shear refreshingness of its right-wing view, I still would rather an unbiased source.

bettercallsaul
09-09-2014, 04:07 PM
Government funded scientists should not be trusted for a second.

Malus
09-09-2014, 08:07 PM
IF A SCIENTIST WORKING FOR CANADA DISCOVERS EVIDENCE THAT THERE MAY BE CANCER-RELATED VIRUSES IN OUR RIVERS, STEPHEN HARPER WON'T LET THEM TALK ABOUT IT BECAUSE IT MIGHT MAKE HIM LOOK BAD. - See more at: http://www.littleredumbrella.com/2012/06/stephen-harpers-war-on-science.html#sthash.HFga9ef5.dpuf


"The Canadian government in recent years has banned government scientists from talking about a growing list of research topics including: snowflakes, the ozone layer, salmon, and previously published work about a 13,000-year-old flood."
http://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/sep/16/canadian-scientists-government-censorship


Suzuki said scientific research is needed for public and scientific awareness around issues such as the Northern Gateway pipeline, GMOs, and other environmental and public health concerns sectors of research that are being gutted by the current administration.

"Science, not politics or corporations, provides by far the best assessment of the way the world works, and the information that we need to decide how we must act," Suzuki said.

"I believe that the muzzling of science represents a government that is willfully blind."

http://www.commondreams.org/news/2013/09/17/thousands-canadian-scientists-protest-death-science-based-policy

Strewth
09-09-2014, 08:17 PM
^Um, not to take away from what you're trying to say, but the first link is to a British paper, where a scientist talks about salmon being depopulated...this year we had a huge run of Sockeye.

The second is from the same British paper, I'm not sure that research into a 13,000 year old flood is what is needed at the moment? Regardless, the same paper I talked about in post #4 applies, that they are federal employees, screaming about funding cuts.

And then you quote Suzuki....

killer kane
09-09-2014, 08:26 PM
Suzuki's been on our teat for decades. and as far as the baiting curly, I for one am not biting. But good try.:trool:

Foxer
09-09-2014, 09:39 PM
I'm not sure that research into a 13,000 year old flood is what is needed at the moment?

Well, if they don't report it pretty soon the insurance may be denied for starters.

Doug_M
09-10-2014, 05:00 AM
IF A SCIENTIST WORKING FOR CANADA DISCOVERS EVIDENCE THAT THERE MAY BE CANCER-RELATED VIRUSES IN OUR RIVERS, STEPHEN HARPER WON'T LET THEM TALK ABOUT IT BECAUSE IT MIGHT MAKE HIM LOOK BAD. - See more at: http://www.littleredumbrella.com/2012/06/stephen-harpers-war-on-science.html#sthash.HFga9ef5.dpuf


"The Canadian government in recent years has banned government scientists from talking about a growing list of research topics including: snowflakes, the ozone layer, salmon, and previously published work about a 13,000-year-old flood."
http://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/sep/16/canadian-scientists-government-censorship


Suzuki said scientific research is needed for public and scientific awareness around issues such as the Northern Gateway pipeline, GMOs, and other environmental and public health concerns — sectors of research that are being gutted by the current administration.

"Science, not politics or corporations, provides by far the best assessment of the way the world works, and the information that we need to decide how we must act," Suzuki said.

"I believe that the muzzling of science represents a government that is willfully blind."

http://www.commondreams.org/news/2013/09/17/thousands-canadian-scientists-protest-death-science-based-policy

The current policy came about because of some scientists being partisans. That is not allowed as government employees. The sensational headline in the first article is a theoretical scenario, not something that has actually happened (that we know of). I would hope that it is just a bad theory and not what is/could happen. This policy seems to be about stopping scientists from speaking out against their employer, nothing more.

The makeup of the public service is a reflection of society at large and hence at least 60% didn't vote Conservative. While that should not matter there are those who rail against the Conservative government like they were literally the devil. That cannot be allowed to happen regardless of what party is in power. While public servants serve the "public", legally they serve the government of the day. That is literally their employer. Each employee of each department literally works for the Minister of whatever. Some of the scientists have forgotten that. They should have been fired.

RangeBob
09-10-2014, 09:50 AM
It's important to remember that in tough times, gov'ts cut.

In tough times, governments spend. "Stimulus"

In profitable times, governments spend on pie-in-the-sky projects.

In ok times, if there's call for it, governments reduce deficit and if it goes on long enough then reduce debt.

[This differs from the way it used to be pre 1970, when governments tried to pay off debt within 20 years so the next generation wouldn't be saddled with the debt of their parents]

ilikemoose
09-11-2014, 12:22 PM
Government funded scientists, like all federal employees, sign a value and ethics code (http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/pol/doc-eng.aspx?section=text&id=25049) just like all public servants, where they agree they won't speak out against the government or it's policies while under their employment. They know this going in, it's been this way for a long time.

I assume sour grapes over funding cuts....on said cuts I've read some articles about how these cuts are trimming the fat (pork), but when I Google it all I get are pages of the CBC and The Star screaming about how Darth Harper is dragging us back to the stone age. I'll try to find a couple that are unbiased; I remember one that seemed fair from an ex-employee talking about how they wished there were more admin cuts than "front line" cuts, but the cuts made sense in the grand scheme of the de-bunking of global warming and such.

I think this post nailed it.

The Harper govt is not muzzleing the scientific community, it's holding the government scientists to the ethics code they signed as a condition of employment.

The vast Canadian government contains many experts on a dizzying array of subjects from agriculture to zoology and everything in between.

Some of these experts are scientists, some are not.

All of them, at least in theory, serve the will of parliament and have a chain of command as it relates to communicating with the public, and being a scientist does not get you immunity from these rules and it does not entitle you to state public opposition to government policy in a way that would never be tolerated from people in other govt positions.

Curly1
09-11-2014, 01:36 PM
I think this post nailed it.

The Harper govt is not muzzleing the scientific community, it's holding the government scientists to the ethics code they signed as a condition of employment.

The vast Canadian government contains many experts on a dizzying array of subjects from agriculture to zoology and everything in between.

Some of these experts are scientists, some are not.

All of them, at least in theory, serve the will of parliament and have a chain of command as it relates to communicating with the public, and being a scientist does not get you immunity from these rules and it does not entitle you to state public opposition to government policy in a way that would never be tolerated from people in other govt positions.

Just so I understand the concept, you are suggesting no employee should be allowed to speak about their employer, correct?

Strewth
09-11-2014, 02:01 PM
Just so I understand the concept, you are suggesting no employee should be allowed to speak about their employer, correct?



Mmm, I'm not sure about ilikemoose, but as it's my post he quoted:

Expected Behaviours

Federal public servants are expected to conduct themselves in accordance with the values of the public sector and these expected behaviours.
1. Respect For Democracy Public servants shall uphold the Canadian parliamentary democracy and its institutions by:
1.1 Respecting the rule of law and carrying out their duties in accordance with legislation, policies and directives in a non-partisan and impartial manner.
1.2 Loyally carrying out the lawful decisions of their leaders and supporting ministers in their accountability to Parliament and Canadians.
1.3 Providing decision makers with all the information, analysis and advice they need, always striving to be open, candid and impartial.

2. Respect For People Public servants shall respect human dignity and the value of every person by:
2.1 Treating every person with respect and fairness.
2.2 Valuing diversity and the benefit of combining the unique qualities and strengths inherent in a diverse workforce.
2.3 Helping to create and maintain safe and healthy workplaces that are free from harassment and discrimination.
2.4 Working together in a spirit of openness, honesty and transparency that encourages engagement, collaboration and respectful communication.

3. Integrity Public servants shall serve the public interest by:
3.1 Acting at all times with integrity and in a manner that will bear the closest public scrutiny, an obligation that may not be fully satisfied by simply acting within the law.
3.2 Never using their official roles to inappropriately obtain an advantage for themselves or to advantage or disadvantage others.
3.3 Taking all possible steps to prevent and resolve any real, apparent or potential conflicts of interest between their official responsibilities and their private affairs in favour of the public interest.
3.4 Acting in such a way as to maintain their employer's trust.

4. Stewardship Public servants shall use resources responsibly by:
4.1 Effectively and efficiently using the public money, property and resources managed by them.
4.2 Considering the present and long-term effects that their actions have on people and the environment.
4.3 Acquiring, preserving and sharing knowledge and information as appropriate.

5. Excellence Public servants shall demonstrate professional excellence by:
5.1 Providing fair, timely, efficient and effective services that respect Canada's official languages.
5.2 Continually improving the quality of policies, programs and services they provide.
5.3 Fostering a work environment that promotes teamwork, learning and innovation.


Application

Acceptance of these values and adherence to the expected behaviours is a condition of employment for every public servant in the federal public sector, regardless of their level or position. A breach of these values or behaviours may result in disciplinary measures being taken, up to and including termination of employment.

The PSDPA defines the "public sector" as: (a) the departments named in Schedule I to the Financial Administration Act and the other portions of the federal public administration named in Schedules I.1 to V to that Act; and (b) the Crown corporations and other public bodies set out in Schedule I of the PSDPA. However, "the public sector" does not include the Canadian Forces, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service or the Communications Security Establishment, which are subject to separate requirements under the Act.

The Values and Ethics Code for the Public Sector came into force on April 2, 2012.

Avenues for Resolution

The expected behaviours are not intended to respond to every possible ethical issue that might arise in the course of a public servant's daily work. When ethical issues arise, public servants are encouraged to discuss and resolve these matters with their immediate supervisor. They can also seek advice and support from other appropriate sources within their organization.

Public servants at all levels are expected to resolve issues in a fair and respectful manner and consider informal processes such as dialogue or mediation.

As provided by sections 12 and 13 of the PSDPA, if public servants have information that could indicate a serious breach of this Code, they can bring the matter, in confidence and without fear of reprisal, to the attention of their immediate supervisor, their senior officer for disclosure or the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner.

Senior officers for disclosure are responsible for supporting the chief executive in meeting the requirements of the PSDPA. They help promote a positive environment for disclosing wrongdoing, and deal with disclosures of wrongdoing made by employees of the organization. Further information on the duties and powers of senior officers for disclosure can be found in the attached Appendix.

Members of the public who have reason to believe that a public servant has not acted in accordance with this Code can bring the matter to an organizational point of contact that has been designated for the handling of such concerns or to the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner to disclose a serious breach of this Code.

Which is to say, if I went on the CBC and told the world that my boss was an idiot and doing it all wrong, without talking to him first, I could expect to get to sleep in tomorrow, as I would certainly not have to get up for work. But I work in the private sector.
How easy would it be to fire a government employee for slander or libel without such a document?

You did say this Curly1

I understand the employee thing and agree, just wondering why such a hard line to gag them now and cut back on the use of science.
so I'm not sure why the question? R&D is always good...but the government gets to decide how much of our tax money is spent on it.

killer kane
09-11-2014, 07:12 PM
Yes curly, my wife works for the feds, has for years, in a few different departments and nope, yowling and screeching about your boss can get you slapped down, or fired. In fact depending on where you work and what kind of clearance you have you could do fairly heavy time for opening your flap. So I'd say just let the dead horse go off to rot.

Malus
09-12-2014, 07:35 PM
Facts are facts. Harper has gagged the scientists, regardless of whomever you don't care for (I'm not a fan of Suzuki either). These guys have been on the coast for years and this is what they've noticed. I assuming they aren't government funded scientists.......




http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pSp14zV_jSI

conger
09-13-2014, 07:21 AM
Blue starfish prey on sea anemones. Which may account for the abundance of them and the lack of the anemones.
We can change what happened in Fukushima, buy only try to clean up after and learn from our mistakes.
It's a nice video but comes across as a bit of fear mongering. Sure, man has caused damage to the environment but I don't know if things are as dire as he paints up.

killer kane
09-13-2014, 09:01 AM
And we can look at the stuff we have done, like banning seal hunting, that with the pirates off the coast ingnoring any kind of ethics and look what you've got. Or how about the new dark ages in germany, etc. thanks to alt energy poverty......

conger
09-13-2014, 09:16 AM
And we can look at the stuff we have done, like banning seal hunting, that with the pirates off the coast ingnoring any kind of ethics and look what you've got. Or how about the new dark ages in germany, etc. thanks to alt energy poverty......
Interesting thing about banning seal hunting is their population has nearly tripled since 1958. And what do seals eat? Fish.... Same fish we fish for. Cod stocks are way down. Big surprise. It would be easy enough to find out where these two guys in the video sit politically. Ask them a couple of questions about pipelines, oilsands, fracking. It won't take long for them to come unglued if they are lefty in nature.

killer kane
09-14-2014, 09:01 AM
Interesting thing about banning seal hunting is their population has nearly tripled since 1958. And what do seals eat? Fish.... Same fish we fish for. Cod stocks are way down. Big surprise. It would be easy enough to find out where these two guys in the video sit politically. Ask them a couple of questions about pipelines, oilsands, fracking. It won't take long for them to come unglued if they are lefty in nature.

I hear ya.

Shalimar
09-14-2014, 09:59 AM
knock, knock, knock.. penny? knock, knock, knock.. penny? knock, knock, knock.. penny?

Foxer
09-14-2014, 11:59 AM
knock, knock, knock.. penny? knock, knock, knock.. penny? knock, knock, knock.. penny?

ROFL :)