May: Office Blues (government back to office)

Unlikely to garner much sympathy (public servants rarely do!) but out of step with overall trend of office workers returning to the office. Not sure how many will actually “demote out” of being an executive. But appreciate the adjustment challenge:

The more than 9,000 executives who normally keep their heads down publicly are raising alarms.

APEX is getting lots of reaction from its members. Executives are now required back in the office four days a week. Some accept the shift as part of the job, but most are disappointed and surprised at the lack of consultation.

Some say they are thinking of leaving executive roles and “demoting out.” There is also a concern that the four-day requirement will discourage people from applying for promotions.

Many feel they don’t have the tools and support to smoothly manage the transition – like they don’t have the space, desks or the office configurations for their teams to be productive.

They also question this decision when the government is committed to reducing half of its office space portfolio over the decade.

Executives feel they have faced many challenges managing teams at a distance while scrambling to deliver programs during the pandemic. This is seen as another one piled onto an already taxing workload. The “straw that broke the camel’s back,” said one.

APEX says stress is high among executives, mental-health claims are rising, and this decision won’t help.

“These issues are real and concerning,” said APEX CEO Carl Trottier. “APEX has started consulting the executive community to better understand their concerns and will advocate tirelessly on their behalf to support them as they are faced with implementation.”

Source: May: Office Blues (government back to office)

Clark: Results? That’s not Ottawa’s business

Unfortunately, outputs trump outcomes, the latter being harder to measure yet being more meaningful:

…In Mr. Trudeau’s early days in power, he called in former British prime minister Tony Blair’s results guru Sir Michael Barber, the author of a book called Deliverology 101, in what was widely seen as a faddish attempt to teach the old bureaucracy new tricks.

A lot of what Sir Michael emphasized was actually pretty straightforward stuff, and it is pretty easy to see why Mr. Trudeau’s government abandoned it.

Sir Michael wanted the government to clearly identify what the success of an initiative would be – not the announcement, but the outcome – and tell people. He suggested the government measure progress, with data. And to change things when they weren’t going as planned.

The zeal for all that drifted away. It’s politically risky. Measuring progress with data – or audits, for that matter – asks questions you might not want answered. Acknowledging mistakes means – heaven forbid – acknowledging mistakes. None of that makes good marketing.

Source: Results? That’s not Ottawa’s business

While other countries add services, Canada adds public servants

Great header. One important point missing to deliver digital successfully, existing policies and procedures will need significant change. Tech cannot solve all the problems if the policies are too complex to understand and manage:

To change course, we must commit to:

  • Make digital skills a requirement for advancement in government. How will we progress if our leaders lack the skills, experience, and confidence necessary to own successful service delivery?
  • Deliver useful, simple wins quickly. Large projects are far more likely to fail than small ones. Let’s prove we can deliver value fast to restore confidence. The rapid delivery of the Canada Emergency Response Benefit proved that we can achieve wins when we must. 
  • Create a single government interface. Design services around citizen needs rather than around department responsibilities. Thirty-one countries have figured this out.
  • Change both citizen and government behavior.  All Canadians will have to relearn how they interact with their government using the new tools we build. The rewards will be significant: In Estonia, one simple rule—the government may not ask for a piece of information twice—slashed bureaucracy throughout the public sector.
  • Spending, schedules, and performance must be transparent. We’re clearly spending too much on transformation, and not getting enough in return. Yet nobody has a good handle on costs. From now on, every initiative must start with a clear definition of success, and then make simple metrics public throughout the delivery process. 
  • Let leaders do the hard work. There should be no responsibility without authority. If we task someone with making hard—even unpopular, changes—we need to give them the power, resources, and flexibility necessary to deliver citizen-centric services. It’s the only way we’ll attract serious digital talent to public service.
  • Create and re-use standard modules. Create software “building blocks” that make building services faster, easier, and more secure—and then insist that every department uses them. Freeze the budgets of departments who refuse.

In his 1993 resignation address, the then-prime minister Brian Mulroney said, “whether one agrees with our solutions or not, none will accuse us of having chosen to evade our responsibilities by side-stepping the most controversial issues of our time.” 

We have been side-stepping the biggest shift in government of our lifetimes. Digital power will define the best countries of the coming century. If we want to remain among them, we must become a digital-first nation.

Source: While other countries add services, Canada adds public servants

Budget 2024: Statement on Gender, Diversity, and Inclusion, varia

Definitely worth a look, for the richness of the data as well the insights into the government’s diversity and inclusion priorities and how it stitches the narrative together with political and Canadian public priorities.

Intro has the key messages:

  • “Early Learning and Child Care, which is supporting better economic outcomes for women, by making it possible for more women to participate in the workforce, while securing access to quality child care and learning, thus contributing to positive childhood development and the future well-being of children.
  • The interim Canada Dental Benefit has helped hundreds of thousands of children get the oral health care they need, and once fully implemented in 2025, the new Canadian Dental Care Plan will improve the long-term health of 9 million Canadians, who may have previously been unable to visit an oral health professional due to the cost.
  • The National Action Plan to End Gender-Based Violence provides targeted action to protect Canadians who experience or are at risk of experiencing violence because of their sex, gender, gender identity, gender expression, or perceived gender.
  • The Federal 2SLGBTQI+ Action Plan advances the rights and equality for Two-Spirit, lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, intersex, and other sexually and gender diverse people in Canada.
  • The Implementation of the National Action Plan to End the Tragedy of Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls is providing targeted, culturally-appropriate supports to Indigenous women, girls, and 2SLGBTQQIA people, while working to address the root causes of the violence they face.

In Budget 2024, the government is making investments to close the divide between generations. For younger Canadians, the government is taking new action to reduce tax advantages that benefit the wealthy, is investing to build more homes, faster, is strengthening Canada’s social safety net, and is boosting productivity and innovation to grow an economy with better-paying opportunities.

These efforts will improve the lives of all younger Canadians, and their impacts will be greatest for lower-income and marginalized younger Canadians, who will benefit from new pathways to unlock a fair chance at building a good middle class life.

This starts with a focus on housing. Resolving Canada’s housing crisis is critical for every generation and the most vulnerable Canadians. The government is building more community housing to make rent more affordable for lower-income Canadians, including through:

  • The $618.2 million Federal Community Housing Initiative;
  • The $15 billion Affordable Housing Fund, including a $1 billion top-up in Budget 2024;
  • The $1.5 billion Co-Operative Housing Development Program; and,
  • The $4.4 billion Housing Accelerator Fund, including a $400 million top-up in

These investments provide Canadians and younger generations with opportunity ––finding an affordable home to buy or rent; having access to recreational spaces, amenities, and schools to raise families.

Having a place to call home creates a broad range of benefits. When survivors of domestic partner violence can find affordable housing, this creates a safe home base for their children to break cycles of violence and poverty. When Indigenous people can find affordable housing that meets their specific needs that means they can access culturalsupports to help heal from the legacy of colonialism. When persons with disabilities are able to find low-barrier or barrier-free housing, this enables them to utilize the entirety of their homes.

To ensure that young people and future generations benefit from continued actions for sustained and equitable prosperity for all, this budget makes key investments to guarantee access to safe and affordable housing, help Canadians have a good quality of life while dealing with rising costs, and  provide economic stability through good-paying jobs and opportunities for upskilling.”

Interestingly, no mention of the employment equity task force and its recommendations, although it is mentioned in the Budget.

Immigration aspects are limited to “continued funding for immigration and refugee legal aid” (but the Budget has significant funding for immigration and reflects the government’s pivot away from unlimited temporary workers and international students and post 2015 ending annual increases).

The Budget also has a reference to “Permit the Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada (FINTRAC) to disclose financial intelligence to provincial and territorial civil forfeiture offices to support efforts to seize property linked to unlawful activity; and, Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada to strengthen the integrity of Canada’s citizenship process (with little to no detail).”

No surprise, but the 2019 and 2021 election platform commitments to eliminate citizenship fees remain unmet.

The Government’s proposed reduction in the public service by 5,000 public servants over four years (1,250 per year) is meaningless as the 2022-22 EE report shows annual separations more than 10 times that:

One thought that crossed my mind while browsing this close to 40 page document is whether this level of detail and effort would survive a change in government. Unlikely IMO, given the pressure to reduce spending and the CPC general aversion to excessive employment equity reporting and measures.

Source: Budget 2024, Statement on Gender Equality, Diversity, and Inclusion

Employment Equity in the Public Service of Canada for Fiscal Year 2022 to 2023

The latest report, with a range of additional information compared to previous reports: EX1-5 level breakdowns, more longer-term data sets, summary salary distribution, seven-year hiring, promotion and separation datasets, top five/bottom five occupational group etc. Overwhelming amount of data than needed for more general audiences but wonderful for nerds like myself.

In addition, TBS has implemented, on a provisory basis pending the revision to the EE Act, in this report separate equity group for Black public servants, as recommended by the EE Task Force. However, likely reflecting data issues, it has not done so for LGBTQ as also recommended by the Task Force, giving the impression of being a secondary priority and likely reflecting greater advocacy (Black Class Action class action etc).

Needless to say, representation by EX level will likely provoke the most interest.

Figure 1 provides the overview numbers, with relatively small variations between the equity groups, with the expected pattern of greater representation at the EX-1 level with the exception of visible minorities at the EX4 level which match the general EX4 population.:

Figure 2 highlights the 2023-2020 comparison between junior and medium level EX (directors and DGs) and senior EX (ADMs), and the percentage increase during this period. The steep increase can likely be interpreted in part to the public service’s overall diversity efforts and the Clerk’s Action call:

Figure 3 compares all employees, all visible minorities, not Black employees, Black employees only and their respective distribution among EX categories, taking advantage of the new section on Black employees. To address the “less than 5” issue, I have collapsed the EX4 and EX5.

Only at the junior EX-01 level, do all three groups exceed the overall distribution. Non-Black visible minorities are more strongly represented than Black employees at all levels save for the EX-01 level, relatively minor but not insignificant.

By including this separate analysis of Black public servants, the report only highlights the limitations of such a carve-out.

My previous analyses of the past 6 years of disaggregated data highlighted the importance of comparisons among all visible minority groups with respect to Black public servants, given than their representation, hiring, promotion and separations are stronger than a number of other groups (How well is the government meeting its diversity targets? An intersectionality analysis). By being selective, this presents the situation of Black public servants as being worse than such comparative data demonstrates. I will be updating this hiring, promotion and separation analysis but do not expect the trend to differ.

On a general level, I was struck by the rapid year-over-year growth of the public service, from 236,133 to 253,411, or 7.3 percent.

Hardly sustainable and should the Conservatives win, as appears likely, the cuts will be deep and painful for the public service. Given that employment equity is unlikely to be a priority for such a government, this may be one of the last extensive and comprehensive reports (they were particularly lean during the Harper years). Should the Liberal government not pass new EE legislation during its mandate, unlikely that a Conservative government would given general ideological aversion, financial pressures and higher priorities.

Source: Employment Equity in the Public Service of Canada for Fiscal Year 2022 to 2023

Barclay: Systemic change needed to recognize harms of antisemitism in the public service

Yet another pressure (and DEI in general has discounted Jews and antisemitism). That being said, recognizing Jews as a separate category would also require recognizing other religions, further muddying the waters between gender, racialized minorities and religious minorities, making intersectionality analysis likely beyond the capacity of the public service.

Analysis would be stronger if there was some data presented in terms of discrimination and harassment reported cases (sorry, “reported” without references or actual data doesn’t cut it):

In 2022, the Jewish Public Service Network (JPSN) petitioned the Employment Equity Act Review Task Force to designate Jewish public servants as an “employment equity ginvroup” in response to the blatant antisemitism, anti-Jewish hatred, and oppression that have become endemic within Canada’s public service.

However, only months before Hamas’ savage attacks against the state of Israel on Oct. 7, 2023, the Employment Equity Act Review Task Force rejected the JPSN’s request and stated that, despite the rampant antisemitism that Jewish public servants have been forced to endure, the Task Force does not “recommend the creation of a separate category for some or all religious minorities at this time.”

Unfortunately, although the Employment Equity Act Review Task Force has refused to designate Jewish public servants as an “employment equity group,” it is readily apparent that Jewish people throughout Canada’s public service are consistently the victims of overt antisemitism, explicit oppression, and anti-Jewish hatred.

For example, data shows that antisemitic incidents have become increasingly frequent and are consistently permitted to transpire throughout Canada’s public service, particularly in the wake of Hamas’ recent attacks against the state of Israel. Even the Task Force itself was forced to acknowledge in its final report that it was “especially concerned by the reported rise in anti-Semitism [in Canadian society and Canada’s public service].” In fact, whenever the Israel-Palestine conflict erupts, antisemitic incidents and violent antisemitism inevitablyskyrocket.

In addition, antisemitic canards about Jews and money are routinely invoked, and countless macabre antisemitic delusions about the Jewish community have been allowed to migrate freely throughout Canada’s public service. For instance, when one Jewish public servant dared to eat matzah at work, she was immediately beset by a colleague who asked, “How could you eat that given it is made from the blood of Egyptian children?”

Sadly, it is clear that the Employment Equity Act Review Task Force has struggled profoundly to accurately locate the Jewish experience within the public service, and has completely failed to earnestly interface with the intersectionality that is inherent to every Jewish identity, ideology, and experience.

For example, the word “antisemitism” only appears twice throughout the Task Force’s entire final reportFurthermore, the words “Jew,” “Jewish,” and “antisemitism” do not appear at all within the report’s executive summary. In contrast, the Black community and the 2SLGBTQI+ community are referred to more than 300 times and 175 times, respectively.

In addition, the Task Force has remained particularly unable to reconcile the fact that it is impossible to classify the Jewish identity as merely “race” or “religion.” As the JPSN itself was forced to reiterate: “Jews are often described as a ‘religious minority’… [However,] the Jewish people are an ethno-religion. Both the ethno and the ‘religion’ are important.”

Unfortunately, the Employment Equity Act Review Task Force’s utter inability to earnestly interface with the challenges that are innate to Jewish identity and to empathize with the plight of Jewish people is not a unique phenomenon.

Rather, Canadian society and the international community have long remained doggedly committed to the myth that the Jewish community is a rich, white, homogenous mass.

Moreover, throughout the advent and onset of “identity politics,” the Jewish nation’s alleged “whiteness” and purported ideological uniformity have consistently been used as the impetus for countless antisemitic tropes, as well as blatant antisemitic abuse and violence.

In fact, countless political actors and organizations deny the plight of Jewish people around the world and dismiss the constant surge of anti-Jewish violence and antisemitism throughout the international political system, simply because the Jewish community does not satisfy the requisite “diversity criteria.”

Therefore, although Jewish identity is certainly the product of centuries of vigorous tradition and customs, it has become essential for all Jewish people and every Jewish ally to expose and embrace anew the vibrant diversity that is inherent to the Jewish community and its fundamental ethos.

Canadian society and the myriad structures that comprise its political apparatus, such as the Employment Equity Act Review Task Force, must first accept the premise that every Jew is an individual and that Jews are real people, replete with problems, social needs, and ills aplenty, before any Jew will truly be treated as a human being in Canada.

William Barclay is a political theorist and consultant who has collaborated with political actors and organizations throughout North America and Europe in order to inform policy and help successfully resolve various unique political challenges.

Source: Systemic change needed to recognize harms of antisemitism in the public service

Court ruling OK’s Amnesty Canada intervention in Black Class Action lawsuit

Fair enough but would have thought higher priorities, particularly given overall representation number of Black public servants compared to other visible minority groups:

….In October 2022, the federal government called for a Federal Court judge to dismiss the uncertified class action seeking $2.5 billion in compensation, arguing workers should pursue other avenues for redress, including filing complaints with the Canadian Human Rights Commission.

Amnesty Canada applied to the court to intervene last summer, with the organization’s counsel noting in a cross-examination a few months later that its participation would be “limited to making legal arguments regarding the defendant’s obligations under international law.”

“Canada’s duty to uphold federal workers’ rights goes beyond the Charter and domestic employment equity legislation,” Ketty Nivyabandi, Secretary General of Amnesty International Canada’s English-speaking section, said in a news release about the decision. “As we will stress to the court, Canada also has clear obligations under international law to promote equity, counter racism and provide an effective remedy when people are subjected to systemic discrimination.”

The court decision stated that the government was the only opponent to the motion, “largely on the basis that the proposed submissions are substantive in nature and not relevant to the procedural issues raised in the certification motion and motion to strike, and on the basis that, in any event, these issues are not governed by international law.”

In a news release, the Black Class Action Secretariat said it welcomed the court’s decision to allow Amnesty International Canada’s intervention in the lawsuit despite the government’s efforts to “vehemently oppose it.”

“This pivotal ruling underscores the necessity of incorporating international human rights perspectives in the fight against systemic discrimination within the federal public service,” a BCAS statement read. “This intervention highlights the national and international importance of our cause and the urgent need to address these injustices.”

The certification hearing is expected to take place after May 3, but BCAS said it called on the government to consent to the certification of the class action instead of “forcing workers to relive decades of trauma.”

“This step is crucial in moving forward toward a fair and just resolution for the affected Black workers,” its statement read. “We urge the government to commit to meaningful actions that address and rectify the discrimination within the public service, thereby restoring trust and integrity in Canada’s federal public service.”

Source: Court ruling OK’s Amnesty Canada intervention in Black Class Action lawsuit

Deputy ministers’ report on values and ethics in public service lacks ‘a point of view,’ says expert

Valid critique and yes, the need to be more pragmatic and I would argue, concrete:

….Michael Wernick, a former Clerk of the Privy Council, said that while the document was a “decent consultation ‘what we heard’ report,” it left him asking “what now?”

“It’s oddly lacking a point of view or position or a stance on anything. It kind of just sends the ball back to the Clerk and the Secretary of the Treasury Board and says we really should have policy on acceptable use of social media, but there’s no advice on what that policy should look like,” Wernick said.

“It identifies a problem with the incursions of political staff, but there’s no advice on what to do about it. So it kind of left me hanging.”

The report’s authors said the document is “intended to serve as a prologue to a broader dialogue on values and ethics in the public service, and we begin by sharing what we have heard, frankly and without filters.”

Pierre-Alain Bujold, spokesperson for the Privy Council Office, said the Clerk is taking time to reflect on the report’s observations and recommendations and consider the best options for next steps. He said the report will inform the “next phase,” including how to broaden the discussion on values and ethics.

When Hannaford created the group of senior officials tasked with discussing values and ethics within the public service, he said he expected to see a “milestone report” by the end of the year.

Wernick said he agrees with the report’s call for more engagement, adding that he’d like to see the next round “drill deeper and be more pragmatic.” He added that it will be interesting to see if Parliament shows interest in the report and if the House of Commons committee on government operations invites the Clerk to speak about it.

“This looks like a picture of how the public service sees itself,” he said. “I don’t know exactly who they talked to but it sounds like they talked to a lot of those who were involved in diversity, equity issues. The report is a bit light on things that voters and taxpayers would probably be more interested in like money, productivity, excellence.”

Daniel Quan-Watson, a deputy minister for just under 15 years before his retirement last year, said he supports the report’s recommendation for conversations to be furthered “institution-wide” within federal government departments.

“We need to keep talking about this because things are evolving quickly and in different ways and because people have a lot of questions,” Quan-Watson said, adding that conversations will differ substantially from organization to organization. “I think that this goes a long way to making sure that they do that.”

Quan-Watson said it would have been “deeply problematic” for a tool on all values and ethics in the public service to have been developed or for any major changes to be made to the Values and Ethics Code over a few months.

“That would miss 90 per cent of the public service, I’m not sure that those changes are ones that would be that effective,” Quan-Watson said, adding that he hopes public servants feel free to raise their questions and concerns to managers and senior leadership. “I think the sensible thing to say is listen, here are the areas that we looked at, we’re getting consistent themes in this, so let’s go see what the broader public service has to say about it.”

“That takes time. It makes it stronger and it makes it incredibly more valuable when it’s done.”

Source: Deputy ministers’ report on values and ethics in public service lacks ‘a point of view,’ says expert

Size of federal public service swells to record high, according to report

Does seem to be time for a reckoning:

….“The obvious question from a citizen taxpayer point of view is, ‘We have 40 per cent more people in government, am I getting 40 per cent faster service?’ I don’t think most people feel that value for money,” said Aaron Wudrick, director of domestic policy with the independent non-partisan Macdonald-Laurier Institute think tank in Ottawa.

“It seems to me you either want to retain that expertise outside or inside government and yet they seem to be spending more in both areas.”

He added: “There are obviously choices this government has to make” with higher interest rates and after years of deficits. “They’ve started to make some signals they will have a bit of fiscal retrenchment. We haven’t seen that play out in terms of hard numbers. I think the budget will be a big signal as to whether they’ll actually change direction or continue on this path.”

Donald Savoie, Canada Research Chair in public administration and governance at the University of Moncton, said he was troubled by the fact that overall employment in the National Capital Region of Ottawa-Gatineau has continued to creep up as a share of total PSC-tracked employment, to 47.6 per cent. It was less than 30 per cent four decades ago, and is closer to 20 per cent now in the capital regions of other countries, including the United States, Britain, France and Australia.

“I think that’s something Canadians should be concerned about because the points of service and program delivery happen at the community, regional and provincial level,” he said. With the dwindled share of federal employment outside Ottawa “it’s not a surprise the quality of service delivery will go down.”…

Source: Size of federal public service swells to record high, according to report

ICYMI: Ottawa will prevent AI tools from discriminating against potential hires, Anand says

Of note:

The federal government will work to prevent artificial intelligence from discriminating against people applying for jobs in federal government departments, says Treasury Board President Anita Anand.

In a wide-ranging year-end interview with CBC News, Anand acknowledged concerns about the use of AI tools in hiring.

“There is no question that at all times, a person’s privacy needs to be respected in accordance with privacy laws, and that our hiring practices must be non-discriminatory and must be embedded with a sense of equality,” Anand said when asked about the government’s use of AI in its hiring process.

“Certainly, as a racialized woman, I feel this very deeply … We need to ensure that any use of AI in the workplace … has to be compliant with existing law and has to be able to stand the moral test of being non-discriminatory….

Source: Ottawa will prevent AI tools from discriminating against potential hires, Anand says