The Liberals strike a blow for government secrecy

2024/05/25 Leave a comment

Sigh, but so endemic of all governments in undermining ATIP:

…A system predicated on the notion that everything but the most classified government documents and data ought to be public has become a tool for Canadians governments to do what they instinctively do best: hoard information.

Let’s be blunt about why they do this: to keep information out of the hands of citizens, because an informed citizenry is an empowered citizenry. Governments aren’t so much jealously squirreling away information as they are sucking the lifeblood out of the democratic system.

Mr. Trudeau came to power vowing to set a sunny example by making information open by default to all Canadians. Then he discovered what every new prime minister discovers: that the default preference in Canada’s halls of power is to keep voters in the dark.

He could still restore his reputation on this issue. He should allow the independent review of the system and restore the Commissioner’s funding. It’s not too late for the Prime Minister to live up to what are still very good ideals.

Source: The Liberals strike a blow for government secrecy

Filed under Government Tagged with , ,

Patrice Dutil: Parks Canada chooses identity politics over giving Sir John A. Macdonald his due

2024/05/23 Leave a comment

Valid critique. Parks Canada used to have a balanced approach in its interpretative displays that invariably provoked controversy from some groups for not totally accepting their narrative from my experience with the Canadian Historical Recognition Program.

Just as Canadian Heritage had trouble adjusting to the Harper government, seems like Parks Canada will be due for a reckoning should the Conservatives, as is likely, form the next government:

Parks Canada launched its new characterization of Sir John A. Macdonald over the Victoria Day long weekend when it reopened Bellevue House in Kingston, Ontario after six long years of restoration. The spectacle, steeped in identity politics, has rightly been criticized for portraying our founding prime minister as among Canada’s worst-ever villains. 

For fans of Canadian architecture and home design and for friends of history, this was an important event. Bellevue House is a gem in the Canadian urban landscape. It was built in 1840 for a prosperous Kingston merchant in an improbable Italian Villa style that features a square central tower and two wings deployed on either side. Think of it as a proud Canada goose standing and opening its wings, inviting visitors inside. It is as welcoming today as it was when I first visited it as part of a school field trip in grade 7, well over 50 years ago.

Macdonald rented the place for about a year in 1848-1849. Back in those days, it was located in the suburbs of Kingston and he had picked it as a place of rest for his wife Isabella who had given birth to their first child John Jr. It was a big house—far too big for a small family—and it was expensive. Sadly, it turned out to be the place of terrible tragedy for the young couple, as their son died there before he was barely a year old. 

In Macdonald’s long and impressive life, Bellevue House is nothing but an asterisk. His stay was short, no big decisions were hatched there, he never owned it, and he did not even write about it. Two other places in Canada are far more important: the Macdonald-Mowat House on St. George Street in Toronto, which has been beautifully restored by the University of Toronto, and Earnscliffe, Macdonald’s grand home overlooking the Ottawa River in Ottawa, which has long been owned by the British government (it serves as the private residence of the British High Commissioner). 

Ottawa bought Bellevue House in 1964 in preparation for Canada’s Centennial. It was opened as a historic park three years later. Because of its association with Canada’s first prime minister, a connection between exquisite architecture and politics was cemented. 

The Trudeau government had choices to make when it closed the house for long-overdue repairs in 2017 (it had suffered neglect and its visiting hours had been reduced by the Harper government). It could have sold it for redevelopment. It could have negotiated an arrangement with Kingston so as to offer much-needed museum space to a beautiful city that has done everything to show it no longer wants any association with its most famous resident. 

It could have approached nearby Queen’s University to make the place useful all year round to students (instead it will be mothballed for eight months each year). It could have made it a museum dedicated to Indigenous Peoples or to Canada’s multiculturalism. Why not a museum dedicated to Canada’s workers? Instead, it decided to keep Bellevue House fixated on Macdonald. The website for the national historical site now opens with telling lines. From the second word, the link is made between Macdonald and the First Nations: 

Hello, Shé:kon, Aaniin. At Bellevue House National Historic Site, many voices present the complex legacy of Canada’s first prime minister, Sir John A. Macdonald. Come for the experience, engage with the stories, and join the conversation about Canadian history.

It continues:

Don’t miss this opportunity to experience the history of Sir John A. Macdonald in the 1840’s setting, while engaging in conversations about the complex and lasting legacies of Canada’s first prime minister.

There is no hint of official bilingualism. Nothing about nation-building, about the achievement of institutionalizing Confederation, or about the hardships of politically uniting a difficult country. Not a word about the economic difficulties that marked Macdonald’s time, or about the massive emigration from Canada in those years. Nothing about the hardships of women in the 19th century, or about the children who were lucky to survive past age 10 and who were typically sent to work from that point onwards. 

Instead, the re-opening of the historic Bellevue House provides yet another embarrassing display of national flagellation, triggered by the adoption of the Trudeau government’s Framework for History and Commemoration (2019), a short-signed guideline not designed to enlighten but instead to demonize Canada’s past and those who (mostly volunteered) to preserve it. 

The opening ceremonies were clear: the mission of the reborn national site is not to celebrate Kingston’s most important (by far) citizen, a man who led a national party to six electoral majorities and who was joyously celebrated in his own lifetime even by his adversaries, but to trot out the usual tropes: he was a racist, a drunk, a man who hated Indigenous peoples to the point of starving them or forcing them to go to school. A man who probably did not like women or immigrants either. Couched in terms of a “timely conversation” the Parks Canada staff’s apparently closed-door consultations with local Indigenous groups recrafted the focus to be Macdonald-Bellevue. 

Not surprisingly, there is a display about residential schools. Academic Channon Oyeniran gave introductory remarks at the reopening ceremony and talked about how the event was a “testament” to the “rewriting of this history.” She was being honest. No known historian of Macdonald, Kingston, or Victorian Upper Canada was even invited.

Dan Maracle, the chief of the Mohawks of the Bay of Quinte, was quoted as saying that Bellevue “Now does a better job of encompassing all of Macdonald’s legacy,” urging Canadians “to learn more about the country’s Indigenous Peoples and their culture.” He continued: “If you learn about the history of the country, then that might actually create a desire to do better in the future.” One has to ask: what would Chief Maracle do without Macdonald the villain?

The reality is that Bellevue House is a fake, as it has always been. Its architecture was borrowed from a place far away and its association with John and Isabella Macdonald was tenuous at best. There are no Macdonald artifacts on display (except, maybe, a crib) because the family was house-poor and had little in the way of furniture—Macdonald was 34 years old, barely earning a living as a lawyer, with no money to buy the expensive items that are now on display and presented as totems of privilege. 

To add insult to injury, Bellevue House will now be used to heave all the ills of the Victorian era on Macdonald’s shoulders. Ignoring the fact that he was the product of democracy, today the government of Canada, which he helped create, continues to ransack the history of the country and goes out of its way to ensure Macdonald gets a kicking. 

The debacle at Bellevue House shows just how Prime Minister Trudeau continues to lead the march of the historical boodle brigade. His first step was to jettison Sir Hector Langevin, Macdonald’s favourite minister (a stalwart Quebec federalist who was as loyal and he was hard-working as minister of public works). The prime minister then did nothing to denounce the vandalism of Macdonald statues on his watch. Instead, he continuously disparages the politics and policies of his predecessors (Liberals included). 

Among his final gestures will be this fiasco at Bellevue House. For this government cannot miss an opportunity, however small, to kneecap its first prime minister’s reputation. On the other hand, there will be plenty of opportunities to boycott Bellevue House.

Source: Patrice Dutil: Parks Canada chooses identity politics over giving Sir John A. Macdonald his due

Filed under Aboriginal, Government Tagged with , , ,

May: Building a culture of public service on hybrid work, Speer: It’s time for public servants to return to the office

2024/05/20 Leave a comment

Some good comments by those interviewed:

….Spicer, who teaches values and ethics, expects the government will face clashes between “individual values and organizational values.”

“There hasn’t been a lot of weight put behind ethics … and we now have a lot of younger folks coming in who don’t have the same kind of understanding of what it means to be a public servant, what it means to act purely within the public interest,” he says.

Spicer says many have a weaker connection to the notion of public service. Some still have the “spark” and see it as a calling. Others, however, see it as little more than a secure and steady job with benefits. Then there are advocates who want to advance a cause, such as climate change or sustainability.

The last group is more likely to quit if they don’t see progress, if their advice isn’t taken or if a change in government takes policy in a different direction or undoes policies, Spicer says.

New recruits are also more culturally diverse. Many have experience in the private sector, other levels of government or are transitioning between sectors. They tend to be professionals, bring expertise from their respective fields and often identify more closely with their profession’s code of conduct than with traditional public service norms.

The era of social media and gig employment

Spicer says they grew up on social media and juggling different jobs. Many see no reason why they can’t voice their opinions on social media or pursue a side hustle while working in government – both of which were traditionally frowned upon and are still controversial.

Public servants claim to be more productive since they began working from home, but a consensus that government needs fixing has emerged. It is too big, slow and risk-averse to deliver its basic services, let alone get ready for the world’s crises. On top of that, trust in government is dropping.

Turnbull says the political timeline “is already so much faster than the public service timeline” and working from home slows that down. The “values-transmission question” is urgent, especially with so many new public servants, she argues.

Fox says the government is committed to a hybrid work model, but departments must be more deliberate about creating a workplace culture that reflects “who we are.”

“We’ve got to have more emphasis on our environment and our learning within so people feel that they’re part of something larger and they understand the responsibilities that come with that.”

Linda Duxbury, a professor of management at Carleton University and expert on work-life balance and remote work, counters that both the unions and the government are misguided in the battle over hybrid work.

She argues there is no one-size-fits-all solution and that people need to be where the jobs can be done. A meat inspector must go to a processing plant and a customs officer must go to the border, but many other public service jobs can be done from anywhere.

However, she added that public servants’ complaints about time and money spent commuting and on lunches and child care are not the employer’s problem. These gripes also don’t fly with Canadians.

“Your job is to serve the public. So, are you serving them? Are you serving yourself?” she asks.

Duxbury says both the government and unions need to “stop with the stupid rhetoric” and start designing jobs to get the best work done. “There is not a simple solution here, so stop talking as if there is.”

Source: Building a culture of public service on hybrid work

And from Sean Speer on the politics and perceptions:

It’s time for Canada’s public servants to return to the office

On last week’s Roundtable podcast, Rudyard Griffiths and I were critical of the public sector unions’ over-the-top reaction to the federal government’s new policy that public servants must be in the office three days per week beginning in September. 

Our weekly exchange generated a bigger reaction than normal. Most of the response was positive. But some were critical of our comments, including those who support remote work in general and those who believed we were wrong to single out public sector workers in particular. 

I thought it might be useful to elaborate on our objections to the union reaction to Ottawa’s back-to-work plan. 

Although we generally think that the negative effects of remote work are underestimated and that all things being equal, workers benefit, individually and collectively, from being in physical proximity with their colleagues, we believe that it’s reasonable to have asymmetric expectations of public sector workers. 

That is to say, while our personal belief is that people should generally be back in the office, we recognize that in the private sector those decisions will be made by employers based on their understanding of the interests of their respective companies. 

Government workers, by contrast, should, in our view, be thought about differently. As taxpayers, we have a collective interest in their workplace arrangements.

There are three chief reasons why we think public servants should be back in the office.

First, we’ve discovered through the We Charity scandal, the ArriveCan scandal, and the details of public servants earning millions of dollars as third-party contractors that there’s a “crisis of culture” in the federal government. One proof-point: The federal public service has grown by more than 40 percent since the Trudeau government took office and yet its service standards and state capacity seem to have deteriorated. Getting back into the office is a crucial step to restoring a more performance-driven culture.

Second, the unionization rate is almost five times higher in the public sector which means that there are inherent limits on the employer’s ability to terminate unproductive or underperforming staff. This is important because we know that public-sector productivity is already generally lower than the private sector’s. Working-from-home can enable public sector workers to lower their productivity even further and yet the government has little to no recourse to address it. Getting back into the office should be understood as a key mechanism for accountability in an employer-employee environment in which traditional forms of accountability are weak or essentially non-existent.

Third, as we discussed on the podcast, there’s something inherently unfair about public sector workers who already benefit, on average, from higher wages, more benefits, and greater job security relative to their private sector peers to also have more flexible workplace arrangements. But there’s also a risk that, in an era of labour scarcity, an asymmetry between the public and private sectors could create perverse incentives for where people want to work. A growing concentration of scarce talent in the public sector due its long list of advantages could come at the expense of Canada’s long-run dynamism and productivity. 

That’s because, whatever the strengths of the public sector, it’s not generally viewed as a source of productivity. Many in fact would argue that Ottawa is actually a drag on productivity—which is to say, the deadweight loss of financing and staffing the government typically subtracts from the more productive deployment of these resources in the broader economy. Therefore, as we face a combination of slowing labour growth and ongoing weak productivity, we cannot afford for the government’s workplace arrangements to distort the labour market. 

The upshot: Federal public servants—it’s time to return to the office. 

Source: https://thehub.ca/2024-05-18/the-weekly-wrap-being-young-doesnt-make-right/

Filed under Government Tagged with , , , , , ,

MacDougall: Memo to the CBC and the public service — prepare to change

2024/05/18 Leave a comment

Fair warning…:

Dear staff at the CBC, Radio-Canada and federal public service:

I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but your salad days are over. If the polls are correct, Justin Trudeau is destined for the glue factory, with Pierre Poilievre coming in to be your new lord and master.

If you’re feeling some existential dread, that’s good. It means you’re sentient. It means you’re alert to the threat and open to taking advice on how to cope with it. For it’s going to require a shift in attitude.

As a believer in both public broadcasting and a strong public service, I want you to succeed. The country needs you to succeed. After all, the corollary to “Canada is broken” is “Canada needs fixing.” And those fixes will require more than a few strategically promoted YouTube videos. They will require long-term planning and sustained execution, and decisions properly communicated to Canadians. That’s where you can help.

So, what to do (besides reach for the Xanax)?

First, to the CBC and Radio-Canada: I know you will dispute the characterization of the past nine years as “salad days.” It’s tough out there for any media organization, including the CBC. The radio listenership is still strong, but you need a microscope to spot The National’s audience. What Peter Mansbridge bequeathed has been squandered. The picture is rosier in la belle province but not by much.

Let’s be honest: current CEO Catherine Tait has made you look ridiculous. There was the bonus stuff. And all the happy-clappy talk of content, digital and marketing triangles is the buzzword bingo of a media executive who DOESN’T already have a cool billion-plus dollars parked in the budget. It’s the talk of someone struggling to release Meta and X/Twitter’s chokehold, not someone who can quite literally afford to rise above it.

The members of Heritage Minister Pascal St-Onge’s new advisory committee on public broadcasting won’t see it this way, but the days of telling Canadian stories that “inform, enlighten and entertain” are over, at least non-hard-news wise. Canada’s “content” is now but a dribble in the face of the global content hose, and Canadian viewers are voting with their eyeballs. You won’t reverse that trend.

Stories in the form of news — particularly local news — are different. Those stories still need to be told, even if there’s little click money in it. Your job as a public broadcaster should be to water the news deserts springing up all over the country and provide the accountability journalism that no longer sells when forced to compete against sexier content on platforms run by technologists who don’t care about the scrutiny of public officials. This same function should be delivered in Ottawa and the provincial capitals, too. Your mission under a Poilievre government should be to hold a mirror up to power and society, without — and this is the key — advocating for any particular outcome.

Now, to the public service.

Let’s start with the bad: cuts are coming. You can’t increase by nearly 40 per cent in nine years without expecting a trim. The public won’t care about cuts, as you have it better than most. The simplest thing you can do to demonstrate good will is turn up to work. Literally. The pandemic is over. It’s time to come back to your cubicles and look your new bosses in the eyes. For one thing, they’ll be less likely to sack you if you’re one of those actually in the office.

It won’t all be bad news. For one, those consultants the Liberals have hired to do the “real” policy thinking are going to get it in the neck. More to the point, the political wing of the government quite literally cannot do anything without you. This isn’t an invitation to oppose or frustrate, by the way. It’s a reminder that while you advise, the elected officials are the ones who decide what you’ll then execute. Stay on the right side of those roles and responsibilities and it might all just be OK.

Good luck / bonne chance!

Andrew MacDougall is a London-based communications consultant and ex-director of communications to former prime minister Stephen Harper.  

Source: MacDougall: Memo to the CBC and the public service — prepare to change

Filed under Government Tagged with ,

May: Office Blues (government back to office)

2024/05/13 Leave a comment

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)

Filed under Government Tagged with , , ,

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

2024/05/10 Leave a comment

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

Filed under Government Tagged with , ,

While other countries add services, Canada adds public servants

2024/05/08 Leave a comment

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

Filed under Government Tagged with ,

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

2024/04/18 Leave a comment

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

Filed under Citizenship, Government, Immigration, Multiculturalism Tagged with , ,

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

2024/03/28 Leave a comment

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

Filed under Government Tagged with ,

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

2024/02/19 Leave a comment

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 report. Furthermore, 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

Filed under Antisemitism, Government, Multiculturalism Tagged with , ,

← Older posts

Newer posts →