- Reaction score
If you own a business, you're on the hook for whatever it costs to develop and retain employees. There's nothing wrong with a right to release anyone for no reason at all; you are responsible for the costs. People released can apply for work elsewhere, including the same kind of work.
Those who don't own a business and have a free hand to impose discipline can create liabilities for those who do own the business. Politicians and government employees fit that description.
Glad we're on the same page so far.
Taxpayers have an arguable claim to being able to seek and retain employment in anything publicly owned.
Here's where you lose me.
The government is no different than a corporation and Canadian citizens are shareholders who get a vote on who leads it. We elect the board (Parliament), and the Board on our behalf selects the C-suite executives (Cabinet). The board and the C-suite runs the corporation as effectively as possible. That includes hiring employees, promoting some, and discarding others who are not of net positive value.
No one, by virtue of being a shareholder, is entitled to employment with that corporation. Sure, they can seek employment there like anyone else, but if they get hired and suck, being a shareholder doesn't protect you from being fired. The government or corporation also owes it to it's shareholders not to keep dead weight or net-negative contributors around.
Professional institutions are a bit different, not being directly an employer but having the power of denying someone a line of employment entirely. People in those institutions have no right of association they may exercise against anyone they please. So there have to be rules to prevent people who don't bear costs from imposing costs on others inappropriately.
Professional bodies are private entities. They are providing a service to their members by ensuring a certain standard of skill and conduct, which gives the member something of marketable value in the private sector. They're also providing a service to the public, but the public pays for that then pay for the services of said members.
If you want to be part of that professional body, you are choosing to meet their standards, join their organization, and adhere their standards, so that you can benefit from that marketable brand. Everyone in that profession is associated with one another. An engineer has lots to lose from being associated with, via their professional body, another engineer who has caused a bridge to collapse due to negligence.
If you are removed from that professional body, that doesn't deny you any "line of employment entirely." There are other professional bodies, and if not, you can go create your own. That some government's have legislated only certain professional bodies can perform certain work is a product of that profession's success. But there is nothing stopping anyone else from starting their own professional body and convincing voters that they, too, can provide an adequate, or the same, or better standard. And there is nothing stopping voters to choose one, some, or no professional organizations that are allowed to do certain work.
So yes, your argument that the professional body doesn't bear the costs of it's member's negligence is just wrong. If you don't like the membership's standards or the way it's governing itself, vote for new executives, or run to be an executive, or leave and start your own designation. But that professional body is governing and maintaining that standard on the membership's behalf because they all stand to lose if the standard slips and the public loses confidence in that profession. It was less than 10 years ago we had three different professional bodies for accountants in Canada, all in competition with one another. If CPA Canada sucks, it can go right back to that.
Of course, the issue the CAF has is there is no other military in Canada to compete with. If there was, the CAF would probably get its shit together and start dumping the dead weight real quick.
Suppose we had a quantitative measure of proof (likelihood of guilt, as a percentage) and could measure all disputes with it. I suspect there are trivial numbers of vexatious or ill-founded complaints that people bring to bear, and few where the evidence is really weak. I guess that plotting many cases would produce a lopsided distribution, leaning strongly towards 100% with a rapid drop off before 50% and a very narrow tail from there down to 0%. If the rapid drop off occurred, say, at 75%, then the burden of proof could be raised from balance of probability to 70/30 (proof/disproof) without materially benefiting most actually guilty persons. But it would provide a lot more protection for not actually guilty persons. It should also reduce false or contrived disputes, allowing more resources to be directed to disputes with substance (or more resources to not be expended at all).
While it'd be great to be able to quantify, we obviously can't. If you want to advocate for a different standard than balance of probabilities for administrative law issues, such as reason I dunno, "any reasonable person would conclude..." or something, still going to have subjectivity.
And then the standard that's being upheld is subjective too. You can raise the burden of proof, but if I have a different standard of what's "professional" than you do, the burden of proof. For example, the CAF's "values and expected behaviors," someone could be put on remedial measures for not meeting this: "1.4 Acting in such a way as to maintain DND’s and the CF’s trust, as well as that of their peers, supervisors and subordinates."
The evidence can be clear cut, it could be on video of someone, I dunno, publicly berating a subordinates behavior to correct it on the spot, in the moment it happened (and perhaps that was necessary), but there is a question of whether it crossed the line into belittling/bullying. You may feel that this is not a behavior undermines trust whereas I feel it does.... you may think it warrants nothing, I think IC, someone else thinks it severe enough to warrant an RW, someone else says C&P.
In any case, if you want to debate what's an appropriate burden of proof for administrative law, sure, that's a worthy debate. But people need to stop bring in nonsense such as human rights, calling things "punishments" and throwing words like "harm" around, or trying to opine that a professional body and it's membership doesn't have a vested interested in the conduct of it's membership.
I can't help but feel all the gripes in this thread and the seemingly defense of Adm McDonald despite no one knowing anything about the case are a knee-jerk reaction to wanting to fight back against cancel culture. I, too, despise cancel culture, but there's an easy solution to fight cancel culture..... a transparent process. Then we can actually judge the fairness of the process. Even if you make it "proof beyond a reasonable doubt," they could still kick out Adm McDonald and we'd still have no idea if it was fair / proper or not. So I don't even know why we're on this tangent.