While I was away: Government and other

Where intent meets reality: Embedding implementation into government decision-making. 

Good reminder by former DMs Flack and Wallace on the importance of implementation. As noted previously in my blog, that was the premise, along with citizen-centred service, that was being the creation of Service Canada, largely neglected subsequently:

  • Implementation considerations need to be at the heart of federal government decision-making.
  • Sequencing of the cabinet review process needs to be altered so that implementation issues are canvassed from the beginning.
  • Political parties should be able to consult departments on implementation issues when developing their campaign platforms.
  • The “challenge” function of central agencies, focused on reducing risk, should be recalibrated with a complementary “lift” function, focused on helping successful implementation.
  • Projects should be funded to enable success, including through realistic costing ranges. There should be greater delegation of project authority, with more timely approval of interim decisions for complex projects.
  • Program design should be simplified to improve delivery and reduce costs.

Hancock: Spectators at the Apocalypse

Hard to be optimistic these days…:

… Fear, complacency, helplessness – each is amplified by the digital world we now inhabit. The same screens that frighten us also distract and tranquillize us. The outrage that once gathered people in the public square is now discharged in the comments section – just as angry, perhaps more so, but detached from an organizing movement or even an organizing idea. Together with our virtual comrades, we like, mock, share, sign online petitions, and post those memes, satisfied that we have registered our dissent. Then we close the tab. We have not stopped protesting; we have dematerialized protest.

Worse, as Neil Postman warned 40 years ago, our media turn disasters into entertainment. We consume looming global crises in the same format, and with the same thumb-swipe, as sports highlights, celebrity gossip, and ads for sneakers. An existential warning from a climate scientist is queued between a book review and a cat video. Wildfire devastation becomes striking drone footage. Catastrophe becomes content.

Historian Christopher Clark described the leaders who stumbled into the First World War as “sleepwalkers” – actors who helped create a catastrophe they neither intended nor fully understood. Our predicament may be stranger. We are sleepwalking with our eyes wide open. The warnings are everywhere. We see catastrophes unfolding. We can even imagine how they end. And still we sit and watch.

Candice Malcolm wins the 2026 George Jonas Freedom Award

Well worth reading for a better understanding of some right-leaning media entrepreneurs. Interesting mix of being off the grid in terms of one’s personal life, and very much on the grid for one’s political life:

…So we have to ask why. What happened? How did our country fall apart so fast in my adult lifetime?

While I feel incredibly lucky and truly blessed by God, over the last few years I have become incredibly disillusioned with our institutions — because I can, I mostly avoid them.

I don’t trust the media establishment, so I built my own media company to report the news and tell the truth.

I don’t trust the medical establishment, and so I chose an unmedicated homebirth rather than stepping foot in a hospital post-Covid.

I’m so distrustful of our food systems that Kaz and I bought a farm where we raise our own chickens; eat grass-fed, hormone-free beef; we grow our own vegetables; and bake our own bread.

And finally, we homeschool our children.

That’s the anti-establishment trifecta: home births, homesteading and homeschooling.

Anil Anora: Neither Uncontrolled Acceleration Nor Technological Paralysis – Here’s What AI Governance Should Look Like

Nice to see this thoughtful and comprehensive look at AI governance issues. Elephant in the room of course it that Canada, like many other countries, are largely at the mercy of the US-based tech companies:

  • Every AI initiative should begin with articulation of the public or organizational purpose it is intended to serve.
  • AI governance cannot be separated from data governance.
  • For consequential and frontier systems, a developer or deployer should be required to present a safety case: a structured, evidence-supported argument that a system is acceptably safe for a defined operating context. 
  • A so-called “kill switch” should not be treated as a single button or a rhetorical promise.
  • Responsibility must follow the capacity to prevent harm.
  • Trust cannot be created through communications after the important decisions have already been made.
  • AI systems, model weights, data and compute cross borders, while legal authority remains largely national.

Finally, governance must be able to learn and adjust. Legislatures should set rights, duties, prohibitions and institutional mandates. Technically capable regulators should update evaluation protocols and standards as evidence develops, subject to transparency and oversight. Regulatory sandboxes, public-interest research capacity, shared testing infrastructure and clear procurement rules can lower barriers to responsible innovation. Adaptive governance should mean disciplined learning within democratic boundaries, not permanent discretion for governments or firms.

Jewish public servants face disproportionately high levels of discrimination at work, survey finds

Of note:

The federal public service is facing calls to combat antisemitism after Jewish civil servants reported experiencing disproportionately high levels of discrimination in the workplace.

In 2024, the annual federal employee survey tracked responses based on religion for the first time. A breakdown of the responses found that 18 per cent of Jewish civil servants reported experiencing discrimination and harassment in the workplace, including offensive remarks.

Some Jewish community leaders say the survey confirms anecdotal reports they’ve heard about rising antisemitism within the public service. 

Across the federal civil service, 9 per cent of employees who responded to the survey said they had experienced discrimination in the workplace in the preceding 12 months, with 11 per cent reporting they had faced harassment.

Thirteen per cent of Muslim public servants said they had experienced discrimination in the year preceding the survey, with 12 per cent reporting they had experienced harassment. 

Only half of civil servants responded to the survey, including approximately 67,820 Christians, 6,550 Muslims, 3,130 Hindus, 1,830 Sikhs and 1,500 Jews.

Fourteen per cent of Sikh public servants who responded said they had experienced harassment, with 13 per cent saying they had suffered discrimination, including on the basis of their race. …

Source: Jewish public servants face disproportionately high levels of discrimination at work, survey finds

C.D. Howe: Better Evidence, Better Spending: A Call for Stronger Federal Program Evaluation

Hard not to agree with most of their recommendations:

…Drawing on presentations and discussions from the C.D. Howe Institute’s 2026 Workshop on Strengthening the Federal Evaluation Function, the report recommends making value for money assessments a mandatory part of federal program evaluations, based on rigorous benefit-cost and cost-effectiveness analysis where appropriate. It also proposes creating an independent evaluator general to help departments build evaluation capacity and improve the consistency and quality of federal evaluations. 

“Governments shouldn’t simply ask whether a program achieves its objectives. They also need to know whether it delivers enough public benefit to justify the resources devoted to it,” says Robidoux, former Senior Associate Deputy Minister at Employment and Social Development Canada. “When fiscal pressures intensify, stronger value for money evaluations give decision-makers better evidence to determine where each additional taxpayer dollar can have the greatest impact.”

The report also recommends expanding the evaluation framework to include spending delivered through the tax system, incorporating a value for money test earlier in the approval process for new programs, making greater use of linked administrative data, and replacing the rigid five-year evaluation cycle with a more flexible approach when programs have already been thoroughly assessed and remain largely unchanged. 

“Too often, federal evaluations focus on how program participants are impacted – without identifying the program’s contribution to these outcomes – rather than on whether programs provide value for money when all benefits and costs are accounted for,” says Lester, Fellow-in-Residence, C.D. Howe Institute. “Policymakers also need to know whether a program delivers enough value to justify the tax dollars required to fund it. Stronger evidence will help them make better spending decisions.”

Ottawa describes its overall expenditure management system as “designed to ensure that all programs are focused on results, provide value for taxpayers’ money and are aligned with the government’s priorities and responsibilities.” 

Making value for money evaluations of programs mandatory while allowing time to build capacity, appointing an evaluator general, and broadening the scope of the evaluation policy would be big steps toward making this worthy goal a reality, conclude the authors….

Source: Better Evidence, Better Spending: A Call for Stronger Federal Program Evaluation

Chronique | Experts sur le banc des accusés

Good distinction between experts and deciders:

…“Les experts ne sont ni infaillibles ni élus. Ils peuvent se tromper, débattre, diverger et réviser leurs conclusions. C’est ainsi que la science progresse, par la confrontation des hypothèses et l’accumulation des connaissances. Cette capacité à remettre constamment les connaissances à l’épreuve est aussi l’une des grandes forces de la démocratie. Le rôle des experts n’est pas de dicter ce que la société doit vouloir, mais de nous aider à mieux comprendre les conséquences des choix qui s’offrent à nous.

C’est précisément parce que la science accepte la contradiction qu’elle constitue un outil précieux pour la démocratie. Elle ne prétend pas détenir une vérité absolue ; elle cherche continuellement à améliorer notre compréhension du réel.

Une démocratie mature n’oppose pas les élus aux experts. Au contraire, elle reconnaît que chacun a un rôle bien distinct à jouer. Les chercheurs produisent et interprètent les connaissances. Les citoyens expriment leurs besoins, leurs valeurs et leurs préférences. Les élus arbitrent entre les options et assument les décisions.

“Lorsque les experts se retrouvent sur le banc des accusés, ce n’est pas seulement leur crédibilité qui est mise en jeu. C’est aussi notre capacité collective à prendre des décisions éclairées. Car une démocratie qui cesse d’écouter ceux dont le métier est de produire des connaissances ne devient pas plus démocratique. Elle devient simplement moins bien informée. La science ne remplace pas la démocratie. Elle lui donne les moyens de mieux décider.”

François William Croteau P.-d.g. de l’IRIU, professeur associé à l’UQAM, l’auteur a été maire de Rosemont–La Petite-Patrie. Il a publié «Nos villes au front» chez Atelier 10.

Source: Chronique | Experts sur le banc des accusés

…“ Experts are neither infallible nor elected. They can be wrong, debate, diverge and revise their conclusions. This is how science progresses, through the confrontation of hypotheses and the accumulation of knowledge. This ability to constantly put knowledge to the test is also one of the great strengths of democracy. The role of experts is not to dictate what society must want, but to help us better understand the consequences of the choices available to us.

It is precisely because science accepts contradiction that it is a valuable tool for democracy. It does not claim to have absolute truth; it continually seeks to improve our understanding of reality.

A mature democracy does not oppose elected officials to experts. On the contrary, it recognizes that everyone has a very distinct role to play. Researchers produce and interpret knowledge. Citizens express their needs, values and preferences. The elected officials arbitrate between the options and assume the decisions.

“When experts find themselves in the dock, it is not only their credibility that is at stake. It is also our collective ability to make informed decisions. Because a democracy that stops listening to those whose job is to produce knowledge does not become more democratic. She simply becomes less informed. Science does not replace democracy. It gives him the means to decide better.”

François William Croteau P.-d.g. of IRIU, associate professor at UQAM, the author was mayor of Rosemont–La Petite-Patrie. He published “Our cities at the front” at Atelier 10.

Government of Canada announces new members to be appointed to the Independent Advisory Board for Senate Appointments

Of note: Gender parity, 2 visible minorities, 1 Indigenous.

Comparison table below:

….The new members bring a sound understanding of the parliamentary and legislative process, which will allow them to provide high quality recommendations to the Prime Minister about who could contribute to the work of the Senate. Adding to the constitutional requirements, the members will be focused on recommendations that will achieve greater expertise in the Senate on the emerging issues and challenges facing Canada including trade, finance, artificial intelligence and technology, diplomacy and foreign affairs, criminal justice and community safety and strategic Canadian capabilities and industries.

This is especially important following the expansion of the criteria for new applicants to the Senate, and the removal of the non-partisanship criterion for Senate appointments, recognising the valuable contributions made by Canadians who have chosen to serve in elected office or in other partisan roles…

Source: Government of Canada announces new members to be appointed to the Independent Advisory Board for Senate Appointments

ICYMI: Applications for federal public service jobs drop by almost 30 per cent

Will be interesting to see overall impact on hirings, separations and promotions by group in next year’s report:

The number of people applying for a job in the federal government plummeted last year as Ottawa works to slash the size of the public service.

Two years ago, there were more than a million applications for jobs in the federal public service.

But between April 1, 2025 and March 31, 2026, that number fell by nearly 30 per cent, to less than 735,000.

The number of job ads the government posted was also down almost 40 per cent, while the number of people who left the public service, including retirements and resignations, increased 12 per cent.

There were also around 52 per cent fewer promotions within the public service in 2025-26, compared to a year earlier. 

In Budget 2025, the Liberal government committed to cutting the number of public service positions by about 40,000 people by April 2029 from a peak of almost 368,000 in 2024. …

Source: Applications for federal public service jobs drop by almost 30 per cent

ICYMI – Globe editorial: The return of a Liberal Senate in all but name

Will continue to track nominations. As mentioned, selection of non-partisan appointments equally telling of government priorities:

…Now here we are in 2026, with a majority Liberal government and a Senate stacked with Liberal and Liberal-leaning senators, and Mr. Carney has made it clear that the good old days of unapologetic partisanship are back. 

And yet there is still no Liberal caucus in the Senate to identify those past and future Liberal appointees as what they are: an extension of the government of the day, waiting for its marching orders.

The Senate may have finally reached its nadir – an unelected house stuffed with political appointees who can feign independence and thus shield the government from the consequences of their decisions. 

If Liberal senators are going to function as Liberal senators, Canadians deserve the honesty of calling them that. Mr. Carney has cheapened democracy with his actions. He needs to restore the Liberal caucus in Senate to undo the damage. 

Source: The return of a Liberal Senate in all but name

Clerk Report to PM: Less Emphasis of Employment Equity

Quite a shift from the previous Clerk and government. The annex A extensive data on public service representation and diversity have been replaced by Public Service Employee Survey Responses centred around the Clerk’s priorities of focus, simplify, accountability and Inclusion and values-based culture.

Given a shrinking public service and concerns among advocates that this may affect representation (no sign of it yet), an odd decision rather than just adding an annex.

While the report makes the standard references to inclusion, the “How we work” Annex B limits inclusion to regional aspects: “A values-based, inclusive public service where all public servants from all regions feel valued, supported and empowered to contribute.”

Was it a conscious decision not to include “all backgrounds” or an oversight? Hard to know but it does suggest an overall decreased interest in employment equity at a time when the public service is shrinking. We will see if TBS continues its detailed annual reporting or simplifies.

32nd Annual Report to the Prime Minister on the Public Service of Canada

33rd Annual Report to the Prime Minister on the Public Service of Canada



Grant: The Real Reason Bosses Want You Back in the Office Full Time (It’s Not Productivity) 

Although the analysis is based upon the private sector, parallels in the public sector as well, although the public sector has to address perceptions of public service as being coddled compared to the private sector:

…There are limits to the benefit of flexible office policies. Research suggests that working from home for more than half the week can be isolating — it’s harder to build connections and cultures. It’s also more difficult to encourage creative collisions, informal learning and mentoring. But it doesn’t take five days a week to accomplish these goals. In fact, it turns out that people are most collaborative and creative when they work remotely part of the week. They can use a day or two at home to focus on individual deep work and reserve the rest of the week for communication and collective problem-solving. It’s well documented that too much togetherness breeds groupthink (not to mention germs). When we spend some time apart, we actually generate more innovative ideas and make smarter decisions.

Hybrid work does have its own challenges for leaders. It’s not fun to try to inspire through a recorded video message or lead a brainstorming session on a digital whiteboard. But to maintain a competitive advantage in an increasingly flexible world, it’s time for leaders to put their egos aside and master the art of managing from afar. Evidence supports a few basic guidelines.

One: Coordination counts. Teams need anchor days when everyone shows up — especially to welcome newcomers and mentor junior people. At Microsoft, new hires who spent at least a couple of days a month with their manager and their teams were more satisfied with their early experiences, which in turn meant they were more likely to stay over the next year and a half.

Two: Intensity beats frequency. The software company Atlassian has found that spending a few days with your team at a well-designed quarterly team gathering does more for connection and belonging than daily schleps to the office.

Three: Hybrid work is not one-size-fits-all. Different jobs require different amounts of time in person. So do different people; for example, flexibility proves particularly important in attracting and retaining women. And you need to gather together more if your staff operates like a basketball team passing the ball back and forth, rather than a gymnastics team whose members do their own individual events. (This explains why fully remote teams struggleto patent new technologies, but the people who examine patent applications are more productive when they can work from anywhere they like.)

Four: Most people care more about when they work than where. If they can choose the hours, they’re more willing to let leaders pick the place.

Organizational policies shouldn’t be vanity projects. The responsibility of leaders is not to mold the world to their needs. It’s to adapt themselves to the world’s needs, even if it means learning to live without the thrill of a live audience.

Dr. Grant, a contributing Opinion writer, is an organizational psychologist at the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania. Ms. Shandell and Ms. Elliott are Ph.D. candidates there.

Source: The Real Reason Bosses Want You Back in the Office Full Time (It’s Not Productivity)

Dissecting 2024-25 data on the public service, early cuts, and equity goals (paywall)

My latest analysis. Short version in the Hill Times.

Source: Dissecting 2024-25 data on the public service, early cuts, and equity goals

Full detailed version below: