Hydro-Quebec's Code of Conduct

Quebec's minister in charge of Hydro-Quebec, Nathalie Normandeau finally commented on the the donation affair over at Hydro-Quebec.
Conveniently on vacation, she waited out public reaction to see where the chips would fall and then when the media and the public gave up on the story, she defended Mr. Vandal saying that it wasn't a conflict of interest because he didn't gain anything personally.

According to her and André Pratte, the editorialist in La Presse, unless the money ends up in your pocket it isn't a conflict.
By that logic you could send money to your sister, your mother, your uncle's company and you'd be in the clear!

It's utter nonsense. Had the donation gone through to the school, Mr. Vandal would have gotten a direct benefit, perhaps not monetary but a very direct benefit none the less. As he was the one who clearly brought in the donation, he would have received the credit and recognition. Doesn't that count? For rich and powerful people, recognition is as important as money.

Does Mr. Vandal really believe that he didn't fiddle the system to his advantage?
We don't know his side of the story because he continues to duck the press, a sure sign of a guilty conscience. I imagine that if he did face the press, this is what he'd say;

"I respectfully decline to answer the question based on my fifth admendment rights the fact that my position is indefensible."

Perhaps Mr. Vandal and all those defending him should read the Hydro-Quebec 'Code of Conduct.' It's got quite a bit to say on the subject of conflict and by the way, look who wrote the preface!;

Page 2
...The company’s reputation is a precious asset, and customers have very high expectations in terms of honesty and transparency...

...This Code of Conduct is designed to help us determine the attitude we should adopt in the performance of our duties. As employees of Hydro-Québec, we must all familiarize ourselves with the Code and apply the ethical principles it is based on. Let us apply it to everything we do and to each decision we make, in keeping with our shared values.

-Thierry Vandal
President and Chief Executive Officer

Page 3
...We must be honest and responsible. In a public utility, the conduct of each employee has to be irreproachable and beyond suspicion...

....Good faith alone will not necessarily protect us from an error whose consequences could be detrimental for us and for Hydro-Québec . The appearance of conflict of interest, for example, may create doubt or uncertainty on the part of the public and tarnish the company’s image...

...The Code of Conduct cannot cover all the situations that are likely to arise, and leaves it to each of us to demonstrate good judgment .

Page 5
...As Hydro-Québec employees, we must behave irreproachably in managing the property entrusted to us . The principles of ethics go beyond applying corporate guidelines, and call upon the company’s internal culture and a natural sense of justice. In the absence of rules or in situations not covered by company guidelines, Hydro-Québec expects us to adhere to the general rules of sound management . Transparency must characterize our every action.

...When are we in a conflict of interest?
A conflict of interest exists when we are placed in a situation where we risk favoring our own interests or those of a third party rather than Hydro-Québec’s. We must avoid placing ourselves in a situation where our personal interests or those of our spouse, a family member or a business partner could be in actual or apparent conflict with Hydro-Québec’s interests . Such conflicts could lead us to favor our own interests in certain situations, whereas those of Hydro-Québec should always prevail.

Page 7
We must not place ourselves in a situation of actual or apparent conflict of interest, regardless of the honesty of our intentions...

“Conflict of interest” does not refer only to financial transactions or economic benefits. It may take various other forms as well: influencing a decision related to the hiring process, for example, or giving preferential treatment to individuals or corporate entities. Accordingly, we must avoid having external interests, activities or influences that could compromise our independence in any decision we make or any other initiative within the company .


When is there an apparent conflict of interest?
There is an apparent conflict of interest when, even in the absence of an actual conflict, a situation creates the impression that a conflict of interest could exist .
For example, if a relatively well informed person might conclude that your performance of a task or duty has been or could be influenced by your own interests or those of your spouse, a family member, a friend or a business partner, you are in an apparent conflict of interest.

You can read all about Hydro-Quebec policies here.

In relation to the code of ethics Mr. Vandal's actions can best be described in one word....FAIL!

Quebec News of the Weird- Volume 03

"Do As I Say, Not as I Do!"
The SAQ, Quebec government-owned liquor selling monopoly has come under fire for being hypocritical.
Six months ago they removed all one time use bags from their stores, in favour of reusables, which they sell in an effort to be enviornmentally friendly (and make a profit).
However they haven't cut back on the practice of advertising in Quebec's famous 'Publi-Sac', an advertising medium whereby paper advertisements are distributed directly to homes in a plastic bag. A spokesperson for the SAQ didn't see the contradiction in the policy that sees the distribution of up to 14 flyers a year, nor in the fact that the SAQ offers no recycling program in relation to bottles or corks.

Daredevil Fundambulist wows. A French tightrope walker Ramon Kelvink Jr. walked across a tightrope strung up between two landmarks in Quebec City. He successfully completed the walk in fifteen minutes, 50 meters above the ground and without the benefit of a safety net, to the great relief to the crowd watching below.
What's weird about this? Quebec is the province where in May a woman was given a $420 ticket for not holding an escalator handrail in a subway station in Montreal. How the heck did he get a permit to pull off this stunt?

Montreal gets 'new' district. "Little Italy and Chinatown are getting a new sibling 'LE PETIT MAGHREB" is the new appellation of a few blocks of Jean Talon located between Saint-Michel and Pie-IX blvds.
Just in case you don't know what exactly 'Maghreb' refers to, it is what the French-speaking Arab community that hails from North Africa, in the old French colonies of Morocco, Algeria, and Tunisia are commonly known as. Let's hope that Louise Harel, the mayoralty candidate who is opposed to creating 'ethnic boroughs' isn't too upset. The community was given $40K to refurbish the area. Maybe they'll put up an identifying symbol, like the gate in Chinatown.

Perhaps a minaret?

Montreal forced to rehire-hire worker who forged doctors notes. The city fired a blue-collar worker who was repeatedly absent and who furnished doctors notes excusing her absence which she had forged. The employee who had sixteen years on the job appealed the firing to a tribunal which reduced her punishment to a 21 day suspension

Man Arrested because Officer is a TMNT fan. Michael Ruckenstein and his wife were at Trudeau airport in Montreal to catch a flight to Australia. Despite being a septuagenarian, he is an avid martial arts practitioner and carried in his luggage two tridents used in the practice of the sport. The daggers have no edge and are harmless, he has travelled with them on countless occasions, having already verified with the airline and custom agents that they were perfectly fine to travel with. After his luggage passed through the X-ray machine, he was summoned and arrested by Montreal Police. Despite his explanations, he was held up at the airport until custom agents arrived and confirmed that the 'weapons' were harmless, an hour later. The Rukensteins missed their flight, but more importantly had their names 'flagged' and now are exposed to secondary searches each time they fly.
The couple sued the Montreal Police and in court the arresting officer admitted that he didn't exactly know what the 'weapons' were, but recognized them as dangerous, from watching 'Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles." The Ruckensteins were awarded $7,500.

Public Accountability Not an Important Issue in Quebec

Today's editorial in La Presse, by André Pratte defending Thierry Vandal and Hydro Quebec for the $250,000 donation to a private Montreal high school, is indicative of the very different standard of public accountability that this province operates under.
If Quebec's leading editorialist can excuse a public servant for funneling taxpayer money to his alma mater, an institution where he serves as the chairman of the board of directors, is it any wonder that abuses abound?

"Un faux pas n'efface pas des années de travail au service du Québec."
("A mistake doesn't erase the years of service to Quebec")

Nobody can deny that Quebec marches to a different political and social beat, but our propensity to forgive public servants the most egregious of gaffes and outright abuses of power is a characteristic that not only reflects badly on us all, but hurts our collective pocketbook.

It isn't fair to blame the politicians, the civil servants or the mandarins of our government corporations, for not taking responsibility for their misdeeds. The reason we don't have public accountability is, quite simply, because the public doesn't demand it.

Years ago, I rented an apartment for the winter in Florida. One evening a spry gray-haired senior, knocked on my door and asked if I'd be joining the tax protest down at city hall. I explained that as a renter, it didn't much concern me, to which she replied;

"Then you're an idiot. Don't you know that taxes are part of your rent. If you don't protest then you're agreeing to the increase. That's fine if that's your position, but if you don't agree, it's your duty as a citizen to protest!"

Wow! She told me!

I have to admit she was right. It made me think of how apathetic and removed Quebeckers are from the public decisions that affect our lives.
Faced with conduct like that of Mr. Vandal, instead of sustained outrage and pressure that leads to action, we collectively shrug our shoulders and lean on the old slogan of losers- "What can you do?"

Most western democratic societies live by the important principle that has evolved from the Parliamentary system of government that makes senior officials responsible not only for their own conduct, but that of their employees. Any serious breech of conduct, one that causes embarrassment for the government is met with a immediate resignation or firing.

With responsibility goes accountability, but not in Quebec.

In Ontario, a scandal recently erupted amid revelations that the provincial agency 'Ehealth' awarded lucrative contracts to consultants without competitive tenders. The agency boss, Sarah Kramer resigned abruptly in June along with former chair Alan Hudson.

Last week an Israeli general was forced from the army for loaning a military car to his wife and lying about it to a superior, this after a thirty year career.

Maxime Lapierre, Quebec federal member of Parliament was forced to resign from cabinet for the unpardonable sin of accidentally leaving a confidential document at his girlfriend's house.

Too harsh? Unfair?

It is sometimes sad to have a long and successful career come to an end over a seemingly trivial affair, but it does serve an important purpose as a warning to others that only the highest level of ethical behavior is acceptable when entrusted with the public purse.

Quebec has sadly abandoned, or in fact never embraced the principle of true accountability.

Miscreants are allowed to remain in position after grudging apologies or outright stonewalling as demonstrated by Mr. Vandal.

Instead of being fired on the spot, abusers of the public purse are allowed to finish their mandates rather than face the sack or worse still, as in the case of Jean-Guy Chaput who's lavish expenses as head of SODEC (Quebec film agency) included a $1300 a night hotel at the Cannes film festival, get paid for doing nothing. He was told that because of his unacceptable spending spree, his services were no longer required, but instead of being fired, was paid over $100,000 to do nothing while finishing out his term.

One of the very few instances whereby a resignation was triggered by a scandal was that of the chairman of the board of the SAQ, Raymond Boucher, Quebec's liquor monopoly which was exposed in a price fixing scandal that artificially raised the cost of alcohol to Quebec consumers. Quebeckers were so offended that they did manage to force his resignation. It was the exception that proved the rule.
That being said, it remains a mystery as to how those involved on both side of the conspiracy, (SAQ executives and the producers) avoided criminal prosecution. To date none of the producers have been held accountable or even named. None have been required to refund the ill-gotten gains.

Why no class action suit to recover money, if not from the SAQ, then from the producers involved?

Sociologists can argue why Quebeckers are so docile, but the fact remains that we get the performance from our public servants that we demand.

Let them steal - and they will steal.
Let them pad expenses - and they will pad expenses.
Let them abuse their position - and they will abuse their position.

On the other hand if we demand better, we will get better, it's strictly up to us.

By the way one other point in Mr. Pratte's editorial begs comment;

"Cela dit, il est abusif de parler ici d'un conflit d'intérêts; M. Vandal n'avait absolument rien à gagner, personnellement, de cette subvention."

("That said, it's abusive to talk of a conflict of interest, Mr. Vandal had nothing to gain personally from this donation.")

What? He didn't gain personally? Nonsense!
Just because the money didn't end up in his pocket doesn't mean that he didn't benefit. Surely bringing in such an substantial donation would garner him honor and respect, an important consideration for a man in his position. If Mr. Vandal sent the money to his sister instead of the school, it would also be alright, according to Mr. Pratte, as 'he didn't benefit personally.' Bah!

Mr Vandal is one more example of those who's sense of entitlement offends our sense of justice. He is unrepentant and arrogant, refusing to face the media and hiding behind a statement that says the public utility considers the case closed.

He is the poster boy of a cynical, arrogant and elitist cadre of public officials who populate the higher echelons of Quebec public service and it's agencies.

When the story first broke,the opposition clamoured for Mr. Vandal's resignation.

How did the government react?
Stall. The silence is deafening, as the Premier waits to see how public opinion plays out.
If things get too hot, Mr Vandal will walk the plank, otherwise he will ride out the storm.

Quebeckers have no one to blame but themselves for the Thierry Vandals, the Henri-Paul Rousseaus and the Raymond Bouchers who scoff at our lazy stupidity.

Quebec's Sad Doctor Fiasco

The latest round in Quebec's ongoing doctor fiasco is the news that doctors from Ontario are still facing roadblocks despite the bilateral agreement signed between the two provinces that was supposed to allow each province to recognize the other's professional accreditation and thus pave the way for elimination of the inter-provincial barrier.

This week it was revealed that the five Ontario doctors that applied to work in Quebec still can't get the green light despite the four month old agreement which remains blocked by red tape.

In the meantime, since August 1, doctors from Quebec are free to cross the border into Ontario and start practising immediately. Already close to one hundred Quebec doctors have made the move towards Ontario.
This has infuriated some opposition politicians who have demanded that Quebec withdraw from the agreement rather than take remedial action.

This reaction would border on hilarious, were it not not so sad. Quebec could certainly withdraw from that agreement, but even if they did, that wouldn't preclude Ontario from continuing to honour Quebec credentials. It would then become the worst of both worlds, with Quebec doctors leaving for Ontario and no Ontario doctors allowed in. Our politcos aren't too bright.

Despite what we hear on the news, Quebec does not really have a doctor shortage. Really.

There are more physicians per capita in Quebec than any other province (except Nova Scotia): 215 per 100 000, compared with 179 in Ontario and 166 in Alberta.

Quebec's real problem is the type of doctors that we have.

Although there is an appalling shortage of family medicine doctors, the other specialties are so over-represented that the government is restricting licenses (PREMS) and has actually frozen the hiring of new specialists. For some reason the mainstream press refuses to report that aside from a few specific specialties and family medicine, the government isn't hiring doctors.

When it comes to finding a family doctor, twenty-five percent of Quebeckers are out of luck. Estimates vary as to how many family doctors are needed to fill the gap, but the figure of 700 does sound reasonable.

Why the extreme shortage in family doctors?

Mismanagement. For years the government imposed such harsh conditions, that it drove doctors towards other specialties or worse, out of the province.

First by imposing a salary cap. Doctors could earn so much and no more, regardless of how many patients they saw. It led to the ridiculous situation where GP's were working only three out of four weeks, having maxed out their renumeration, leaving patients in the waiting rooms and doctors twiddling their thumbs. This policy has since been rescinded.

Second was the policy that attempted to blackmail doctors into working in the backwoods of the province, where the doctor shortage was critical. Doctors who set up shop in urban areas were paid less than their counterparts in the sticks. This policy remains in force.

Third, the actual remuneration is inferior to that offered outside Quebec. Quebec has always counted on the language and cultural barriers to keep doctors at home.
The majority of graduating doctors in Quebec are unilingually French (except McGill grads) so few of them, upon graduation, have the option to take up residencies outside the province.
This is why that up to now, it's the Anglos who were leaving, but it is changing as Francophone doctors wise up and learn English.

What to do.....

The answer is much simpler than you could imagine.- Increase the amount of family doctors trained.

Require each of Quebec's medical schools to accept a proportion of their applicants based on a contract that streams them towards becoming a family doctors. Applications to medical schools are so overwhelming, that given a choice between being a family doctor or no doctor at all, applicants would jump at the opportunity.

Secondly, regularize pay and conditions. Quebec could still pay less, but it's got to be more reasonable.
Family doctors are the best investment that the government can make. Their offices are small and extremely efficient compared to the burdensome CLSCs, who's level of care leaves much to be desired, not to mention expensive emergency room visits that could be handled in the doctor's office. Experienced family doctors are a health system bargain, they see more patients a day than any other specialty, with some practices of more than 5,000 patients!

For towns and cities outside the urban hubs, it would be smart to make it worthwhile for doctors to come, instead of bitching and moaning. A free home and office facilities would be a start. The government should allow communities to directly subsize doctors if they want to do so.
It would cost a small town of 20,000 just $5 person to offer a $100,000 yearly bonus to a doctor to set up shop. Believe me, there would be a stampede to the hinterland.

Remember in the real world the carrot is always better than the stick.

Chickens Come Home to Roost for Passport Canada

The blame for the sad affair that kept Torontian, Suaad Haji Mohamud, a Canadian citizen from returning from Kenya because both Kenyan and Canadian consular personnel didn't believe that she was the person portrayed in the photo can probably be blamed on her Canadian passport picture:


In all honesty, would you let her through if it was your decision at the border?

Here is some of her other ID.


Both her OHIP card and her driving license, where she is wearing a hijab are impossible to match to the picture on the left.
However in the ID photo where she isn't wearing the hijab, even though her hair style is different, clearly resembles the picture on the left.

Instead of banning smiles from passport pictures, officials might want to consider banning hijabs instead.

But this being Canada........