Beyond The Commons

Aaron Wherry covers all the goings-on in and around Parliament Hill. Follow Aaron on Twitter: @aaronwherry

Categories: Beyond The Commons, Capital Read

BTC: Hypothetically speaking

by Aaron Wherry on Thursday, September 18, 2008 11:00am - 35 Comments

Would Gerry Ritz still be the Agriculture Minister if he’d been caught joking about 17 Canadians dying in a bus crash? What about if it was the deaths of 17 Canadian soldiers? Or if the deaths had simply been more centralized around a single place (a la Walkerton)? If the answer is no to any of those scenarios, what makes this situation different?

Later… What’s remarkable about this is not that it’s a controversy, but that it’s so minor, or misdirected, a controversy. And how difficult that is to reconcile with the facts.

Let’s review. Seventeen Canadians have died. A leading medical journal has cited government negligence. And the government minister leading the response has been caught joking about the situation.

That third part is actually the least significant. If you apply the first two points to any number of other scenarios, the consequences are already very different. The reaction is very different.

In this case, though, the deaths are abstract. They aren’t focused on a single event. The names of the dead have not been widely reported. The details of their demise are not known. There are no pictures to go with the story. There is no single place or town to talk about or use as a stand-in for wherever you live.

More people have died as a result of this outbreak than when Walkerton became synonymous with bacterial tragedy. But whereas Walkerton remains a sensitive matter and a mark of shame—accepted as symbolic of so much—this story had all but disappeared from the campaign until Canadian Press broke news of Ritz’s comments. The seventeenth death was confirmed just two days ago, but it was mentioned only in passing, attached to no name or personal story.

Again, apply the basic facts to any number of other situations and almost everything about this story changes. And while you can explain, as above, why that is how it is, it’s difficult to explain why that’s at all just.

Tags: Election Watch, Gerry Ritz

More by Aaron Wherry

Emmett

Good question(s). Another way to ask them is, would he have even made jokes in any of those other scenerios? And why might his defenders find those less palatable?
Dije

Or what if the victims weren’t mostly seniors? If they were prime-of-life parents with young children, would he have done the same jesting? What if there had been some deaths (at the time) in Ottawa, making it closer to home for the bureaucrats?

If he had made distasteful jokes about dead soldiers, he would fired by now. And rightfully so.

This should be no different.
http://carnewsandviews.com jwl

I think it would depend on exactly what was said in your other scenarios, context matters. Ritz might have resigned if these revelations had emerged when he first said them.

But this case is selective outrage. The comments were so deplorable the people who were offended by them waited weeks before saying anything and than decided to use them as a wedge issue in order to influence an election.
Claude

All sort of double standards in Canadian electoral politics — why is Bob Rae a Liberal ‘star’ despite the fact that Ontario was decimated during his time as Premier? “Hypothetically speaking” would a Tory-to-Liberal convert with a similar-to-Rae’s record of failure and incompetence be hailed as a Liberal bright light and star???? (Has to be hypothetical, given that no Tory HAS similar-to-Rae’s record of failure and incompetence…)

Would the media downplay or ignore that record as they seem to do with Rae???
Ottawatcher

hmmmm Claude. I think you’ve missed the point. People died.

Also, the non-progressive Conservative party DOES have someone with a horrendous tarck record on the economy. Jim Flaherty.
T. Thwim

There are a few differences between Flaherty and Rae though.

Flaherty had the province in reasonable to good economic times. Rae did not.

Rae has admitted he took things the wrong way and, as such, presumably learned from the experience. Flaherty has not.
dan in van

Me thinks that the CON-verts are expecting the person who leaked Ritz’s comments to pay a bigger price than the dubious minister who said it. But the fact that the gov’t seems to be getting a free ride from the media on their secret document, their handling of the listeria outbreak, and will plod ahead if elected with more deregulation and ‘self-inspection’ lunacy, I can understand why those who witnessed this think that it’s important that the public should know about the gov’t's real intentions.
Claude

For starters…if you don’t think people died in Ontario because of Rae’s policies, just ask all those people who couldn’t and (some still can’t) get a doctor b/c Rae capped the number of doctors could produce and the number of patients doctors could see.

Rae is shameless with no regard for the real impact he wrought on people’s lives. He should be lecturing nobody, and should be the standard of nothing except abject failure.
Claude

….meant to say “number of doctors Ontario med schools could produce…”
John D

Let’s assume for a second that the conservative bots are right and this is a diabolical public servant who held on to Gerry’s awesome humour until an election.

Could someone explain to me how that changes – a. the severity of what he did, and b. any ramifications he should face?
Style

Ritz wasn’t joking about the people who died. He made two awkward joke about the context of the meeting he was having. If somebody said “too bad Harper wasn’t visiting” the day after a bomb blast in Kandahar, that would be comparable. Would you expect that person to resign?
Ti-Guy

if you don’t think people died in Ontario because of Rae’s policies, just ask all those people who couldn’t and (some still can’t) get a doctor b/c Rae capped the number of doctors could produce and the number of patients doctors could see.

What laughable sophistry. Good Lord, the rationalisations never cease to astound me.

Count on the Conbots to derail each and every discussion with non sequiturs, false equivalencies and every logical fallacy known to man.
AintItFunny

If somebody said “too bad Harper wasn’t visiting” the day after a bomb blast in Kandahar, that would be comparable.

If a federal or provincial Minister said that in a meeting – hell yes they should resign.
Matthew Fletcher

John D.
I rarely agree with jwl, however the fact that the people who actually heard the remarks first-hand waited several weeks to disclose them is a factor. It could suggest, that in-context at a first hand hearing, the remarks did not immediately seem that offensive.

HOWEVER, there are many other reasons it might have taken this long. First and foremost, Presumably, everyone in that meeting has been pretty busy lately. It would be good to believe that the person was actually putting their work first, before talking to the press anonymously.

Also, I don’t know how many times jwl has leaked sensitive information that might impact his career and a national election, but a person might be excused for taking some time to consider the implications of such action.
Steph C

There were about 30 people sitting on that call including scientists, who have been under a bit of a gag order.

Plus, Ritz applauded (nationally!) the rat who fingered the CFIA whistleblower, so there’s been quite a chill. And this was one week before the election call, which we all saw coming.

Harper seems to be more upset about this “unfortunate incident,” blaming the “bureaucrat” who “leaked” information from a “private conversation.”
http://deleted Sandi

Well, Claude obviously doesn’t know a damn what he’s talking about.

Besides, what’s Rae got to do with Ritz’s comments?

Amazing, just amazing how CPC supporters to a an extreme stretch to excuse what is inexcusable.
Style

The delay in releasing the comments might have something to do with the CMAJ’s editorial which sought to focus attention on the need for reforms in our food inspection system. The CFIA union is most upset about the possibility that Canada might move to more industry involvement in monitoring. The CMAJ sympathesizes with a move towards self-monitoring. Comments from the meeting (with CFIA participation) are released coincidentally with the editorial for the CMAJ, returning the focus to the Tories and their hidden hatred of humankind.

http://www.cmaj.ca/cgi/rapidpdf/cmaj.081459
Ti-Guy

Well, at least we’re seeing some fresh and rather novel rationalisations.
Brian

With due respect, but when the ratpackers start talking about this being an example of “teh Tories hatred of humankind”, they, too, have gone overboard. Let’s get some perspective here. This was a tasteless joke and he should be censored. But, really, is this or any stupid comment really a reason to fire a minister? I don’t think so regardless of the political party the minister belongs to.

Let’s fire people for errors in public policy or failure to safeguard the public, not because they are rude or insensitive.
TobyornotToby

Delay shmelay, are you folks actually saying that it is nefarious to release information for maximum impact during an election campaign? What about spending announcements then? Hmmm?

And speaking of delay, while we’re all git up about the delay in revealing gross insensitivity, and unprofessional behaviour on the part of the minister, what about the delay in responding to the issue at hand?

When is that happening again? Oh right, a public inquiry AFTER the election.
Style

Why do only Conservative politicians have nefarious motives? Is it really impossible to imagine that civil servants have such motivations? Do you remember the leaks against Arar from civil sservants, leaks that turned out to be totally baseless? This leak does have a basis – the Minister is not denying making the comments. But it is also true that the food inspectors union is pushing heavily the idea that the cause of the outbreak was the withdrawal of inspectors.

The CMAJ doesn’t agree. They believe that more self-monitoring could actually improve our food system, although they also want to see the other refroms they’ve been pushing for more than five years adopted (and that’s the bigger part of the negligence they’re condemning). A civil servant is impeding this debate by leaking nonsense jokes that have completely distracted, at a minimum, the fine journalists of Macleans. If Andrew Coyne wants a union to take on, he could alwqys take a look at this one.
RyanD

Lets try to keep this simple.
1- The joke was unacceptable and tasteless.
2- Many people make tasteless and unacceptable jokes, so this is not uncommon.
3- Regardless of how it got released this type of humour is not at all up to the standards we ought to expect froma Minister either in terms of decorum or ability to use common sense/judgement.
4- Given the COMBINATION of serious (although debatable) questions about the handling of the outbreak by the government and the minister’s foolish comments many people will have difficult trusting the judgement and abilities of the Minister.
5- Consequently the Minister ought to be removed or he should resign until such time as the public can reasonably have confidence in his judgement. This may be never or it may be once an inquiry has been held (IF it finds that he, his ministry or his governments policies hold no fault).
6- I will add my own little conspiracy theory here which even I admit is a stretch at best. Could it be that Mr. Harper has chosen to keep the Minister both as a minister and as a candidate so that he can ensure the Minister does not disclose any further facts about the governments actions which may have contributed to the outbreak? An angry Ritz or at least a Ritz with nothing more to lose might be a significant problem. Loose lips…
T. Thwim

Ryan: Number 6 would also explain Harper’s continued protection of Anders. It makes you wonder what kind of skeleton Anders knows that would cause Harper to piss off most of the Calgary West riding in order to ensure Anders got the candidacy.
Ti-Guy

Is it really impossible to imagine that civil servants have such motivations?

It’s not impossible to imagine UFO’s either. It’s just a little more credible to stick to what you’ve got evidence for.
Style

Again, the exquisite irony of Ti-Guy posts:

3:31 p.m.
Is it really impossible to imagine that civil servants have such motivations?
It’s not impossible to imagine UFO’s either. It’s just a little more credible to stick to what you’ve got evidence for.

12:07 p.m. Count on the Conbots to derail each and every discussion with non sequiturs, false equivalencies and every logical fallacy known to man.