Roland Paris: Scripted foreign ministries will disappear from public debate | Embassy

Good piece by Roland Paris on digital diplomacy. Nails the big challenge for the Canadian government at the end (broader than just for foreign policy):

“Time will tell. In the Canadian example, Canada was slow to recognize the importance of digital diplomacy. “The Canadian government talks about digital diplomacy and direct diplomacy as two different things. They did get on top of [direct diplomacy] using technology to circumvent constraints [to free speech] on Iranians through the Global Dialogue on the Future of Iran, alongside the [University of Toronto’s Munk School of Global Affairs]. For a while Foreign Minister [John] Baird was saying ‘Canada is a leader in digital diplomacy,’ displaying the fact that he didn’t seem to understand that digital diplomacy is so much greater than using electronic tools to allow the dissidents of a country that we have hostile relations with to communicate with each other.

“[John] Baird and the ministry did eventually…announce a new initiative in digital diplomacy, which was essentially to go forth and Tweet, to use these tools. He explicitly said that there has to be a greater tolerance of risk. So is this going to continue, or is this going to be reeled in? We’ll see when the first mistakes are made.

“In the United States, there have been mistakes in digital diplomacy, which did not lead to a retreat at all. The question in Canada is, we have a government that has a particular penchant for message control, compared to most other democratic governments; what will this government do when one of its diplomats follows Minister Baird’s advice, takes risks on Twitter, and puts a foot wrong? That will be the proof, and it will be a test for Minister Baird, and it will also be a test of his ability to deal with message control officials in the Prime Minister’s Office. He’s going to have to show that he meant what he said, when he said there will be greater tolerance of risk, and that might mean facing down message control officials in the Prime Minister’s Office. We’ll see if he can do that.”

Roland Paris: Scripted foreign ministries will disappear from public debate | Embassy – Canadas Foreign Policy Newspaper.

Changes to McGill faculty of medicine admissions pay off – ICYMI

Another example of historical bias and exclusion (‘check your privilege’) and McGill’s effort to address it:

History and tradition dictate that this person is probably white, well-moneyed and English-speaking. As such, he has had the run of McGill’s medical school for the quasi-entirety of the faculty’s existence. It is the stuff of cliché: One of the most exclusive degrees from one of the country’s best institutions has been the chattel of fathers and sons of rich anglophones, to the exclusion of nearly everyone else. It took a few brave female souls and nearly a century to chip away enough of that hardened privilege so as to allow women entrance into this rarefied club…..

Nevertheless, the reaction was equal parts swift and outraged. “The English community that has supported McGill for 150 years is being stabbed in the back,” Debra Finestone, a McGill professor and emergency room physician whose daughter was recently denied a spot in the school, told the Montreal Gazette. Dr. Finestone provided the most quotable bit of pith-and-vinegar emanating from what the Gazette quaintly called “McGill’s traditional stakeholders,” and epitomized this group’s overriding sense of entitlement. We supported you, so you owe us something—like a spot in your school for my kid. It’s interesting that much of the noise seems to come from physicians associated with McGill whose progeny was similarly rejected. And you thought universities were meant to be a respite from this sort of tribalism….

What has changed is competition. Thanks to McGill’s initiatives, the number of successful French-only applicants is up by two percentage points, to seven per cent, between 2009 and 2013. The number of bilingual medical students is up six percentage points, to 66 per cent, during the same time period. Meanwhile, the percentage of students from families earning more than $100,000 decreased from 64 to 52 per cent between 2010 and 2013. (All statistics come from the faculty’s admissions office.) Slowly, steadily, McGill’s medical school is starting to resemble the population beyond its walls.

Changes to McGill faculty of medicine admissions pay off.

Whither the Muslim Brotherhood | hilltimes.com

Tom Quiggan and Danny Eisen (Canadian Coalition Against Terror – C-CAT) on the Muslim Brotherhood and their advocacy of a Canadian inquiry on the activities of the Brotherhood in Canada, similar to that in the UK:

Those opposing further investigation into the Brotherhood point to the Ikhwan’s current eschewal of violence and its support for democracy as emblematic of changes within the Ikhwan, notwithstanding the historic and ideological indicators cited above. But in doing so, they have often overlooked the fine print of the Ikhwani paradigm and the blazing headlines regarding the Brotherhood’s forays into terror sponsorship. They have ignored Brotherhood definitions of democracy as legitimate only when defined by its version of Sharia, and as a principle that can be accepted or rejected once Islamic rule is attained. They have allowed the Brotherhood’s democratic slogans to drown out its annihilationist proclamations against “international Judaism” and incitement and assaults against Egyptian Copts. They have sidestepped the Brotherhood’s endorsement of suicide bombings, not only against Israel, but in “Iraq, Afghanistan, and all [other] parts of our Muslim world.” And perhaps most seriously they have sanitized the Ikhwan’s moral and material support of Hamas. This terrorist organization, renowned for its rabid anti-Semitism and brutality towards Palestinians who do not endorse their path, is defined in its charter as the Palestinian branch of the Muslim Brotherhood.

Whither the Muslim Brotherhood | hilltimes.com.

In other articles, they cast the net broader:

All this also shines some light on the libel suit recently launched by the National Council of Canadian Muslims (NCCM) against Prime Minister Stephen Harper and PMO spokesman Jason MacDonald, after MacDonald publicly noted NCCM’s “documented ties” to Hamas.

NCCM was formerly known as CAIR-CAN or the Council of American Islamic Relations-Canada. Its U.S. parent, CAIR-USA, was originally established by the Muslim Brotherhood and later designated by the U.S. Justice Department as an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation case, meaning it might have been suspected but was never charged with an offence. One of CAIR-CAN’s founding directors was also an unindicted co-conspirator in the trial, which pertained to the illegal funding of Hamas. Not coincidently, Hamas is defined in its charter as the Palestinian branch of the Muslim Brotherhood. So despite the current denials by NCCM of any connection to the Brotherhood-affiliated CAIR-USA, the two organizations have extensive historical ties, with both groups having made repeated claims in the past that they are connected to each other.

Terrorists in our midst – Winnipeg Free Press

Which in turn provoked a response by NCCM:

Instead, they [Quiggan and Eisen] presented a conspiracy-laden diatribe that, in a sweeping stroke, smeared our long-standing Canadian organization as “terrorists” and despicably suggested we intend to destroy Canada from within.

By painting a far-fetched plot of sedition, the writers deliberately avoided the truth and mimicked the documented anti-Muslim cottage industry south of the border.

Rather than educate, their article misled readers by suggesting associations between known terrorist groups and Canadian Muslim organizations that have roundly condemned terrorism and extremism.

Since 2000, the National Council of Canadian Muslims (NCCM) has engaged with fellow Canadians, promoting active citizenship and outreach. As a mainstream organization, we have worked tirelessly, educating Canadian Muslims about their rights and responsibilities, building mutual understanding between communities, participating in major public inquiries and appearing before the Supreme Court of Canada.

We participate in important coalitions with respected organizations such as Amnesty International Canada and the Canadian Civil Liberties Association to uphold fundamental rights and the rule of law — indeed, to help make Canada an even better place for all.

NCCM’s entire body of work is public and we have consistently denounced all forms of violent extremism and specifically condemned terror groups such as al-Qaida and Hamas. No amount of mudslinging will change these facts.

Anti-Muslim diatribe promotes false suspicion

Given the upcoming court case on PMO comments on NCCM (Muslim group sues PM, spokesman for defamation), we shall see how this debate continues.

When working on radicalization and extremism issues, the easier ones, relatively speaking, were those that involved violence and terrorism. But from a multiculturalism and integration perspective, non-violent extremism, for whatever reason, also can undermine the fabric of society.

Live-in Caregiver Program faces nine questions | Vancouver Sun

Interesting piece by Douglas Todd on the live-in caregivers program. I was not aware of the high percentage of live-in caregivers working for members of their own families. Most of the experts cited are critical of the program rather than a more balanced selection, but this does not necessarily invalidate their concerns:

The nine debates:

1. How much does Canada need foreign caregivers who work for their own families?

Since 40 to 70 per cent of Filipino caregivers live with their own sponsoring families in Canada, Kurland says it makes it hard to tell whether a family “is pulling a fast one” and the foreign domestic worker is properly trained or “performing their duties.” …

2. Is the LCP a back-door family reunification program?

Statistics Canada data shows in any given year Canada grants permanent residency to almost as many dependents of live-in caregivers as to the domestic workers themselves. The backlog for live-in caregivers and dependents seeking permanent residency is three years and contains more than 25,000 people, mostly Filipinos. Still, in 2011 Canada gave permanent residency to more than 11,000 caregivers and their children or spouses; in 2012 the figure was 9,000.

3. Poor school and workplace performances

Numerous studies show the offspring of Filipino immigrants, especially boys, do not perform well in schools across Canada. UBC professor May Farrales has focused on the achievement gap among Filipino students in Vancouver, where they drop out of school more and have lower averages….

4. Filipino-Canadians rely more on taxpayers support

Filipinos earn less than Canadians in general, according to a York University study, which says the LCP’s “two-step” approach to immigration has “led to poor economic outcomes for those entering through the program, as well as long periods of separation from family.” Those who come to Canada in conjunction with the LCP, says the study, end up on average receiving more taxpayer support than other Canadians.

While some believe the family separation dilemma could be eased by giving live-in caregivers and their dependents permanent residency upon arrival in Canada, Kurland says that’s not feasible. It would remove live-in helpers incentive to complete even their two-year stint.

5. Does the LCP subsidize affluent families?

The media have run stories about well-off Canadian couples engaging in “nanny poaching” because of reportedly strong competition for live-in caregivers. But, if many caregivers work for their own families and virtually all leave such live-in duties as soon as they can, how intense can demand be?

Caregivers “from less developed countries are prepared to work long hours for low wages in order to obtain permanent residency,” says Martin Collacott, a former ambassador to Asia who is spokesman for the Centre for Immigration Policy Reform. “In effect, the relatively small number of affluent Canadians who can afford to bring in live-in caregivers from overseas are being underwritten by taxpayers.”

6. Other countries more attractive to domestic workers, except for one thing

Most Filipino live-in caregivers would avoid Canada and choose to work in Singapore, Hong Kong, Australia or Japan or if it weren’t for the offer of citizenship, say Serafico and Diesta….

7. Are live-in caregivers circumventing immigration screening?

Most immigrants to Canada are admitted based on job skills or potential to invest. But live-in caregivers are babysitters, nannies and seniors helpers, which Immigration Canada ranks as low-skill. They are not eligible to get into Canada through regular immigration categories.

“Is the LCP really meeting an ongoing labour-market need or simply functioning as a means of immigration to Canada by individuals who wouldn’t otherwise qualify?” asks Collacott, who frequently appears before immigration subcommittees in Ottawa….

8. How does the LCP affect the Philippines?

Filipinos who work abroad send home more than $23 billion a year in remittances. “It’s keeping the whole country afloat, even with all its corruption,” says UBC’s Laquian, who arrived in Vancouver in the 1960s when there were fewer than 1,000 Filipinos in Canada.

While Laquian and his wife, Eleanor, actively support the Vancouver Committee for Domestic Workers and Caregivers Rights, he worries about the downside of so many industrious people leaving behind their families and the Philippines….

9. Would an au pair program be more effective?

With so many questions about Canada’s offer of citizenship to foreign live-in-caregivers, Kurland thinks highly of instituting an alternative “au pair program.”

An au pair program would offer temporary work to foreign nationals, but lead to better, more regulated working conditions that would lure caregivers from a wider range of countries, including, he says, France, Spain and Ireland….

Live-in Caregiver Program faces nine questions | Vancouver Sun.

Ottawa approved thousands of foreign worker requests at minimum wage, data reveals, Banff profile

More evidence of how the Temporary Foreign Workers program expanded without adequate oversight and analysis:

Using Access to Information legislation, the Alberta Federation of Labour obtained extensive statistics about the program and provided its findings to The Globe and Mail. The union sought and obtained information on the number of Labour Market Opinions approved by Employment and Social Development Canada that were for minimum wage jobs. An LMO is a screening process meant to ensure employers have exhausted efforts to hire Canadians before turning to the program.

According to the documents, at least 15,006 minimum-wage positions were approved between March 31, 2010, and Feb. 10, 2014. (Only the numbers for Ontario go back as far as 2010, which means the actual totals for the period would likely be higher.)

Ottawa approved thousands of foreign worker requests at minimum wage, data reveals – The Globe and Mail.

On a more positive note, good profile on how Temporary Foreign Workers have transitioned to permanent residency in Banff, and some of the integration challenges:

Dean Irvine, principal at Banff Elementary, says this can sometimes be a struggle with immigrants from countries like the Philippines, where the culture says you leave education to the educators. “My experience is that is pretty standard in Asian countries for parents to say to teachers: ‘You’re the experts, you take care of things, we don’t necessarily need to communicate.’ That’s been a challenge here, but I think it’s getting better.”

Then there is the adjustment to living alongside moose, elk, deer and sometimes bears. When one elementary-school teacher noticed children from the same Filipino family absent a few days in a row, Ms. Godfrey’s office called to inquire what was going on. It turned out the mother couldn’t walk her children to school and didn’t want them going alone for fear they might encounter some wild creature.

“It’s all about educating them,” Ms. Godfrey says.

Mr. Jalalon says his family has adapted fairly easily to life in Canada, and a decidedly different climate than that of the Philippines. He has been surprised at how welcoming the people here have been, which is much different than the treatment he received in Abu Dubai, where he worked as a paramedic for two years before coming here. There, he says, Filipinos were treated as second-class citizens. Not in Banff.

If anything, he says, he wishes the many Filipinos in Banff worked harder to integrate themselves into the community, to do things like volunteer. Instead, many keep to themselves or stick close to their fellow countrymen. The Filipino community in Banff is too insular for Mr. Jalalon’s liking.

“There was a bad typhoon back home in November of last year – Typhoon Haiyan,” Mr. Jalalon says. “And it was the people of Banff that led the fundraising to help out, not the Filipinos here. I felt quite ashamed by that.”

Many here are concerned about the chill the federal government has put on the temporary foreign worker program. It is a reaction to stories suggesting some businesses are discriminating against non-immigrant Canadians because they don’t believe they have a comparable work ethic to employees they’re bringing in from overseas. But Darren Reeder, executive director of the Banff Lake Louise Hotel Motel Association, says the two resort communities desperately need the TFW to compensate for the loss in workers to higher-paying resource jobs elsewhere in the province.

Mr. Reeder says the fact many of these foreign workers are converting to full-time residents has been a huge benefit to towns like Banff. “It’s been wonderful to see [foreigners] become immersed in the community,” he says. “But we still need assistance in better meeting the needs of our foreign national population.” Despite challenges around housing and other issues, he says, “the fact so many want to become permanent residents speaks to community spirit and the lifestyle we offer. They’re saying: ‘It’s a price worth paying.’”

 Banff’s changing labour landscape 

Professors Are Prejudiced, Too – ICYMI

Not surprising. Other “blind” tests show similar results (e.g., How an ethnic-sounding name may affect the job hunt):

Now for the bad news. We computed the average response rates for each category of student (e.g., white male, Hispanic female), dividing the number of responses from the professors by the number of emails sent from students in a given race or gender category. Our analyses, which we reported recently in a second paper, revealed that the response rates did indeed depend on students’ race and gender identity.

Professors were more responsive to white male students than to female, black, Hispanic, Indian or Chinese students in almost every discipline and across all types of universities. We found the most severe bias in disciplines paying higher faculty salaries and at private universities. In a perverse twist of academic fate, our own discipline of business showed the most bias, with 87 percent of white males receiving a response compared with just 62 percent of all females and minorities combined.

Surprisingly, several supposed advantages that some people believe women and minorities enjoy did not materialize in our data. For example: Were Asians favored, given the model minority stereotype they supposedly benefit from in academic contexts? No. In fact, Chinese students were the most discriminated-against group in our sample. Did reaching out to someone of the same gender or race — such as a black student emailing a black professor — reduce bias? No. We saw the same levels of bias in both same-race and same-gender faculty-student pairs that we saw in pairs not sharing a race or gender (the one exception was Chinese students writing to Chinese professors).

Professors Are Prejudiced, Too – NYTimes.com.

Citizenship bill flies under the radar, it shouldn’t | hilltimes.com

My take in the Hill Times on the Committee hearings on Bill C-24, changes to the Citizenship Act:

One month ago, Parliamentary hearings started on Bill C-24, the Strengthening the Value of Canadian Citizenship Act. Witnesses ranged from those who support the bill unreservedly, to those who oppose without qualification.

It was more Kabuki theatre than debate, given the government mainly probed supporting witnesses and the opposition opposing witnesses. However, many had significant nuances, particularly on due process questions, which may prove significant when the bill proceeds to more formal review.

Apart from the Canadian Jewish community, represented by CIJA, B’nai Brith and J-RAN, there is relatively little testimony from the larger ethnic community organizations. There has also been relatively little press coverage that I have seen in the ethnic media. This is somewhat surprising, given the impact that this bill will have on their communities.

Secondly, lawyers testified strongly against the bill, noting major concerns regarding Charter compliance, particularly with respect to revocation, notwithstanding Immigration Minister Chris Alexander’s assertion that the bill “is fully compliant with the requirements of our Constitution.” Additional concerns were expressed regarding the increased discretion for officials and the minister. Given the track record of the government before the courts, the minister’s confidence will likely be tested as cases emerge.

Thirdly, opinion is highly polarized between those who support the government’s approach of making citizenship “harder to get and easier to lose,” and those who believe the current approach is largely successful and believe in a more facilitative and flexible approach. Overall, more witnesses were opposed to the overall direction of the government.

This article aims to provide the general state-of-play on testimony to date.

Residency: There is no clear consensus and positions are split down the middle. However, some of those supporting the increased residency time and physical presence expressed the need for more flexibility, primarily for those with business reasons for travel. There was general opposition to removal of half-time credit for temporary residence (e.g., foreign students, temporary foreign workers, refugees and live-in caregivers) towards meeting residency requirements. The “intent to reside” provision was opposed by most witnesses, with some fearing that determination by citizenship officers of an applicant’s “intent” could be arbitrary, in addition to the broader question treating naturalized Canadians differently from born Canadians.

Knowledge and language testing: More organizations opposed increased coverage (from 18-year-olds to 54-year-old and 14-year-olds to 64-year-olds), particularly, refugee and settlement organizations. A number of witnesses also opposed the imposition of up-front language testing (introduced to streamline processing), as this effectively increased the language barrier. While some of the concerns regarding older applicants are valid, the 14-year-olds to 17-year-olds automatically will meet language requirements, as they will have been educated in a Canadian school.

Fee increases: Refugee advocates strongly opposed these increases, given that for many the cost could be prohibitive. Citizenship is particularly important for refugees given that many have had to sever connections with their country of origin.

Criminal convictions abroad: While not subject to much testimony, both those supporting and opposing expressed concern regarding the equivalence between Canadian and foreign courts, which needed greater clarity in the bill.

Revocation for fraud: All supported the principle for revocation of fraud or misrepresentation, but the vast majority opposed this being at ministerial discretion with no appeal to the Federal Court. There was support, however, for the streamlined process that removes the Cabinet role and consolidates revocation and removal proceedings.

Revocation for terrorism, high treason, or who take up arms against Canada: Not surprisingly, this formed the bulk of testimony on both sides of the issue, evenly divided. For many, such crimes break the “fundamental social contract of Canada” given that they are acts against Canadian values. For others, the fundamental issue is treating dual nationals, whether by birth or naturalization, differently from Canadian-only nationals, changing Canada’s long-standing policy since Diefenbaker.

Most of those who supported revocation noted the need to add to the existing test, “was the offence equivalent to Canadian law,” a second test, “was the judicial process also equivalent.”

Others opposed the reverse burden of proof on citizens to demonstrate that they did not have dual citizenship. It is unclear whether this includes only the right to another citizenship (e.g., Israel’s Law of Return which has parallels in a number of countries), or actually formally having exercised that right. Retroactive revocation was also criticized (the Omar Khadr provision?).

Less discussed issues included the reduced role for citizenship judges, the requirement to provide tax returns, providing preference to applicants having served in the Canadian Forces (very small numbers), Crown servant first generation exception, and the regulation of citizenship consultants.

A number of witnesses supported the expansion of “lost Canadians” to those born before 1947 (date of the first Canadian Citizenship Act) as well as their first generation born abroad. However, the government suppressed the testimony of long-standing activists Melynda Jarratt and Don Chapman who remain concerned that the bill only fixed war brides and their children, not posthumously recognizing Canadian citizenship of those who died before 1947, including Canadian war dead.

One of my favourite comments, from the Canadian Bar Association, is that the bill should be completely redrafted, with less cross-referencing, in plain language.

After the initial flurry of interest and commentary, the hearings are largely happening under the radar. Mainstream media are not covering it and ethnic communities and media are largely absent. Neither opposition party appears, at this stage, to be making this a major issue, in sharp contrast with C-23, the Fair Elections Act, and controversy over Temporary Foreign Workers. Alexander is lucky indeed.

There are some obvious areas where the government could respond to some of the testimony without changing the fundamentals. There seems no sound policy or political rationale not to count pre-permanent residency time towards citizenship. The intent to reside provision needs further clarification on how citizenship officers will decide whether it is genuine or not. It seems pointless to extend language assessment to 14-year-olds to 17-year-olds given that they have been in Canadian schools for six years before applying. There should be some flexibility for fees for low-income refugees. Greater clarity on Canadian equivalency on foreign criminality convictions will improve fairness. Revocation for terrorism and treason should similarly also test for equivalence to Canadian judicial processes, and have greater clearer criteria and language (e.g., “act” rather than “offence”).

None of this will address the philosophical differences between the government and its supporters, and those of its critics. The overall tightening of citizenship will likely reduce the number of permanent residents taking up citizenship. Increased residency and related requirements may make Canada less attractive to the “best and brightest,” and most mobile immigrants Canada wishes to attract. Revocation for terror and treason changes long-standing policy of treating all Canadians equally, whether born in Canada or naturalized.

As Bill C-24 moves to more formal parliamentary debate, we shall see if the political dynamics change and Canadians start pay more attention to this tougher approach to Canadian citizenship, and the likely effects over time, on Canada.

Immigration bill flies under the radar, it shouldn’t | hilltimes.com.

Ideology, minority rule, distrust shaped Harper government’s relationship with public service | hilltimes.com

Good piece by Mark Burgess in the Hill Times that echoes some of the themes in Policy Arrogance or Innocent Bias: Resetting Citizenship and Multiculturalism, but at a more senior level:

David Zussman, the author of Off and Running: The Prospects and Pitfalls of Government Transitions in Canada who led former prime minister Jean Chrétien’s transition to power in 1993, said the Conservatives came to power in 2006 with a clear agenda and an inexperienced Cabinet, two factors that defined its approach to the public service.

“The more a government is ideological, the more it knows exactly what it wants to do, typically it’s less willing to hear contrary points of view,” Mr. Zussman, the Jarislowsky Chair on Management in the Public Sector at the University of Ottawa, said in an interview.

“This is partly what I think happened in 2006 with the incoming Harper government, is that they had an agenda and they didn’t think it was necessary that they get counter points of view from the public service.”

Elizabeth Roscoe, a member of Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s 2006 transition team, said the minority mandate was their biggest concern.

“You don’t know how long you’re planning for, and you don’t know what the opposition trigger points might be, and you don’t know the appetite of the electorate, so all of those things have to factor in,” she said in an interview with The Hill Times.

Minority mandates always make governments “twitchy” as they worry about losing power at any time, Mr. Zussman said, which further complicates the relationship with bureaucrats.

The most experienced voices in the new Cabinet at the time—Jim Flaherty, Tony Clement and John Baird—were ministers from Mike Harris’ Ontario government, which had a very rocky relationship with the public service.

“If you feel that the public service is not going to provide you with analysis that is consistent with your overall policy agenda, then you’re probably not going to pay a lot of attention to it,” Mr. Zussman said.

“There was a lot of resistance to overcome in 2006 and I think it’s been a work in progress,” he said.

In the book, the leader of Mr. Harper’s transition team, Derek Burney, said the government’s tightly-controlled approach would loosen after winning a majority government in 2011 and include the public service more in policy making.

“I don’t want to hear any more crap about minority government and politics every day,” Mr. Burney said in the book.

He called on bureaucrats to stand up and express ideas “because this is a government that is going to be a little more receptive to good policy ideas than it was when it was looking over its shoulder” in the minority days.

Mr. Burney, a senior strategic adviser at the law firm Norton Rose Fulbright, said the minority mindset wouldn’t change overnight but that it was up to senior bureaucrats to get over the Conservatives’ focus on politics and make the relationship work.

Mr. Zussman said he also would have predicted the Conservatives would open up to the public service and adjust to majority rule after 2011 but that the shift never occurred.

“I think what’s happened, frankly, is after five years, the government has a particular way of operating and they’re just continuing to operate the same way,” he said. “They would argue that it’s working well for them, I suppose.”

Mr. Burney couldn’t be reached for this article. Ms. Roscoe said it took public servants some time to understand the Conservatives’ philosophy and approach.

“Once they did, then they understood better how to align priorities, how to align the agenda, and how to help both bring forward ideas and to implement them,” she said.

Ideology, minority rule, distrust shaped Harper government’s relationship with public service | hilltimes.com. (pay wall)

Wayne Wouters: Public service reform means fixing sick leave too

More on Destination 2020 and the Clerk’s messaging on workplace stress and changes to sick leave:

Privy Council Clerk Wayne Wouters told the Citizen his Destination 2020 reforms, meant to bring the public service into the digital age, go hand-in-hand with Treasury Board President Tony Clement’s promise to replace an outdated sick-leave regime created more than 40 years ago for a very different workforce.

Wouters said he supports Clement’s plan to replace the existing accumulated sick-leave regime with a new short-term disability plan aimed at getting ill and injured workers better and back to work faster.

“Our system is not conducive to a modern workforce,” said Wouters. “People go on sick leave and they go on long-term disability and it’s out of sight, out of mind. We never think how to bring these people back, incorporate them and what kind of wellness program they need.”

A large part of stress is fundamental to the different roles of the political and official levels. When a government works well with the public service (without being captive to their advice), stress goes down. When a government is more antagonistic to the public service and often dismissive of their advice, stress goes up. Hopes that the Conservative government would evolve more into the former, given their time in office and having a majority since 2011, have not panned out as any number of recent incidents attest.

As to the replacement of sick leave and disability insurance, I have had experience on both sides of the issue: as a manager, with employees who abused the system, and as someone with an aggressive cancer which forced me to be absent for an extended period of time.

As a manager, there were few tools and support to deal with abuse in a time-efficient manner. Some employees used accumulated sick leave as “pre-retirement” time, which annoyed me to no end. But given that employees can always get a doctor to certify absence and the Health Canada verification process, while helpful, is somewhat cumbersome, there was not much that one can do. The sick leave reforms will address, at least in part, some of this abuse.

But as someone with cancer, who had banked considerable sick leave over my career, having this accumulated sick leave made a difference during my extended absence. I used it when I needed it. I also benefited from extremely supportive managers and HR. In the end, given a relapse, I ran out of sick leave and went on long-term disability.

One can argue, based upon comparability, that these changes may make sense. But as usual, when we focus on abuse, as we have to do, we penalize those who play by the rules, and who may find themselves in a catastrophic health situation where banking and flexibility can make a big difference.

Wayne Wouters: Public service reform means fixing sick leave too | Ottawa Citizen.

CBA Canadians on Immigration – YouTube

Nice short video by the Canadian Bar Association interviewing Canadians on what they think of immigration. Limitation is that all the street interviews seem to be within a few blocks of each other in downtown Toronto, rather than also interviewing some in rural Canada. 7 minutes.

Favourite interview was a reflective comment on the sacrifices some parents made to come to Canada in order to give their children the opportunity.

CBA Canadians on Immigration – YouTube.