Should we replace some public servants with computerized agents?

2023/07/05 Leave a comment

Yes, as a means to improve citizen service and reduce wait times for routine applications and services. But prior to doing so, do the hard work of reviewing programs and opportunities for simplificant and streamlining rather than assuming tech is a solution to address program complexity, duplication and incoherence between programs.

Most of us have experience with chatbots, who are likely to become more effective given advances in large language models such as ChatGBT:

Take a moment to imagine your next application for passport renewal. Rather than heading to a passport office, the government now allows you to apply online. If the passport office wants to follow up, instead of inviting you to visit in person, they send you a text, asking you to call a number.

Your call is connected immediately, and the agent is pleasant, speaking your language fluently with a slightly hard-to-identify accent. She asks you benign but interesting questions about your upcoming trip. At the end of the conversation, she lets you know that your application will be approved. You thank her enthusiastically, and she wishes you a safe journey.

This scenario is the kind of ideal government interaction that Canadians dream of. But what if that pleasant person who helped you was in fact a highly intelligent computer? Would it change our feelings about the level of service?

What if, instead of a passport application, you were interacting over a medical need; a question of a child support payment; or a request for employment insurance after a job loss? What if you were trying to speak to your local member of Parliament, asking them for assistance in a public matter or to express your opinion on an issue

The reality is that governments are not far from having access to such services. Large language models – made famous by OpenAI’s ChatGPT – are improving at a breathtaking pace. Speech technology and voice recognition are developing at a similar rate. When the linguistic fluency of a language generator is combined with speech technology, the capacity exists to have a conversation with a computer that differs undetectably from one with a human. These digital agents can seamlessly incorporate the information they are receiving in real-time to make judgments that their owners – in this case, the government – program them to make. A world of digital agents who can replace public servants is closer than we think.

Should we help that world develop or hold it back? Of course, we would all rather deal with a real human who behaves like our imaginary artificial agent – quickly, empathetically and accurately. But for many users of government services, that’s not the right comparison case. Which would you prefer: The scenario we described above with an intelligent chatbot? Or the scenario in which you get a notification that you have to head to the passport office (which involves finding it and either securing an appointment or waiting in line) to talk to someone? Or the alternative – to wade through phone trees and hold music to talk to someone who may be at the end of a difficult day and not all that interested in solving your problem, not able to speak your language idiomatically, or unable to explain things in terms you understand?

In the passport example, the constraint on providing better services with an intelligent chatbot would not be the availability of workers to process passport decisions, but the capacity of this technology to scale up. Marginal costs are low here.

To be sure, there are challenges in using these technologies. Their advantages are only realized when more discretion is given to the digital agent. We would have to allow it to make decisions. How do we audit the decisions of robots? And who is accountable for the decisions which they make? What is the recourse when they make the wrong calls, or even do harm through their choices?

These are the kinds of choices governments will need to make about how they are willing to deploy digital agents to deliver services. There will come a moment in the future, perhaps the near future, where the cost of such agents will be low enough and the need for more government services will be high enough, that saying no to such machines will be impossible. Before that time comes, governments ought to decide what principles will guide their use.

There are multiple ways to achieve this. Governments could engage in substantial public consultations and hearings, with both experts and regular citizens. They could convene groups of citizens to deliberate over the principles and rules for the deployment of digital agents. They could run small, open trials, where citizen use of these technologies is entirely voluntary and the results of decisions are open to public scrutiny.

However governments decide to tackle these future choices, the decision must be made a priority now. The aspiration of democracies has long been a government for the people, but also by the people. And it’s up to democracies to decide if the same rule should apply to public services.

Peter Loewen is the director of the Munk School of Global Affairs & Public Policy. Gillian Hadfield is the director of the Schwartz Reisman Institute for Technology and Society.

Source: Should we replace some public servants with computerized agents?

Filed under Government Tagged with , ,

The public service is ailing. Janice Charette says organizational health is the next big challenge

2023/06/30 Leave a comment

Perennial challenge, diagnostic easier than solutions given size, complexity and diversity of government programs along with the political-public service interface:

Janice Charette left the job as Canada’s top bureaucrat stressing that the public service must turn its attention to “organizational health” so it can manage in a world seemingly gone haywire with one crisis on top of another.

Charette, who retired last week as clerk of the Privy Council Office, called organizational health the “new frontier” in renewing the public service, which emerged from a once-in-a-century pandemic with its management performance – the good and the bad – fully exposed.

Every part of society, every family, every employer is dealing with significant changes to the way we live, socialize and interact because of the pandemic, she said in an interview.

“But the conversation we need now is around organizational wellness. How are organizations dealing with one crisis after another, with workload pressures 24/7 and in the complicated and somewhat conflictual operating environments governments are functioning in?”

That conversation is a tall order. Critics and observers say there’s so much that needs fixing in the way human resources, technology and finances are managed. They were built for another time and are out sync with the speed and expectations of the digital age.

The public service, with 350,000 employees, is also as big as it has ever been, and the social and economic problems it tackles more complex.

Organizational health is one of those corporate buzzwords that boils down to how effectively an organization manages and adapts to change.

“An enterprise focus on organizational health is exactly what this government needs because the need to be adaptable, resilient, and engaged is not going away,” said Stephen Harrington, Deloitte’s workforce strategy advisory leader.

He likens it to training for a marathon. You have to prepare, eat, train, and sleep right.

Charette and her predecessors have spent years working on ways to support health and wellbeing of their employees – with varying degrees of success. They’ve made mental health, accessibility for persons with disabilities, reducing anti-Black racism and increasing diversity and inclusion top management priorities. They’re all linked and part of recruiting a public service that reflects the country.

The shift in emphasis must come as workloads are increasing, stress is high and disability claims are climbing. Workplace issues have a disproportionate impact on the mental health of Indigenous, Black and racialized workers, those with disabilities, and those from religious minorities and the 2SLGBTQIA+ community.

Charette said examining organizational health means analyzing how structures, controls, rules, processes and oversight is contributing to work overload, long hours, and stress, as well as turning off the skilled workers it needs to keep and attract.

Charette recently told a mental-health conference that Canada’s largest employer needs a reset.

“You can’t boil an ocean”

“Leaders need to think about how we pivot now to support organizational wellness. COVID also gave us some not-so-great work practices – workers were at home and available to work 24/7. That is wonderful and essential in a crisis.  But it is not sustainable.”

She argues a key part of the next renewal is figuring out what issues to focus on because “you can’t boil an ocean.” Charette, however, steers clear of prioritizing what should be tackled first, leaving that up to her successor, John Hannaford, who takes over this week.

“How do you make sure that public service is fit for purpose in a very different world going forward? That is a timely question, and that’s going to be a question for my successor,” she said.

“I’m going to leave to John to define what his priorities are going to be and how to approach them.”

Clearly, the big issue is workload.

The Liberals have an ambitious agenda with big plans for climate change, transition to a clean-energy economy, and reconciliation – not to mention cabinet ministers loaded up with hundreds of must-dos in their mandate letters. Then there’s the impact of crises erupting around the world and all those day-to-day issues that crop up.

And she’s lived it. As she says, whatever issues landed on the prime minister’s desk landed on hers.

As clerk, she stickhandled the emergence from the pandemic, a shift to hybrid work, service delivery cockups with passport and immigration backlogs and the biggest public-service strike in 30 years. There is the war in Ukraine, a trucker protest, the invoking of the Emergencies Act and the machinery-of-government crisis over foreign interference. Don’t forget floods, fires, soaring inflation, housing shortages and all the day-to-day distractions of social media, partisan attacks and 24-hour news cycle.

Everyone talks about the world being in  “polycrisis,” the term popularized by historian Adam Tooze to describe the coming together of multiple crises at once with the ensuing damage greater than the sum of each part.

“I’m a believer that the polycrisis is here to stay. I think that is a feature of public administration,” Charette says.

The government has enduring priorities, she says, that include addressing inequality, fixing climate change, Canada’s economic growth, prosperity and role in the world.

“All those (priorities) don’t change. It’s the layer of stuff that’s sitting on top of it, and then the crises,” she says.

“The questions for renewal going forward are whether we are affectively organized for that world. Are we trying to do that and everything else at the same time?”

And Charette worries the public service is not ready.

She said it’s as if everyone thought that once the pandemic was over, we would get back to the way things were. She likens it to waiting for “regular programming to resume after this special broadcast.”

“You know what?” she said. “There is always going to be a new special broadcast. I think the world of ongoing special broadcasts in a world of regular programming is here to stay.”

A more permeable public service

During Charette’s final days as clerk, senior bureaucrats, academics and politicians were blocks away in an Ottawa hotel at a conference talking about governments’ institutional resilience during COVID-19. They talked about lessons learned by governing in a crisis and how to adapt for the next one.

They rhymed off examples of governments pulling off feats unimagined pre-pandemic – and in record time. But there’s a lot that needs fixing for public servants to do their jobs better: procurement rules, an outdated job classification system and staffing rules. It can take nearly a year to hire someone. Unions are stuck in an industrial labour regime. There’s too much reliance on contracting. Old legacy IT systems had to be tricked to get out COVID-19 benefits.

A key piece of a reset should be driven by skills, Harrington of Deloitte argues. The government needs to “upskill and reskill” because the skills the government needs will change rapidly. Generative AI alone is going to replace tasks, eliminate jobs and even create new ones.

Charette acknowledged it may also be time to re-think a career public service and make it more “permeable.” Rather than spending 35 years in the public service, people could work there for a few years, move to the private and nonprofit sectors, and perhaps return to the federal government.

Alasdair Roberts, a professor of public policy at the University of Massachusetts, just finished a stint as the Jocelyne Bourgon Visiting Scholar at the Canada School of Public Service, where he studied adaptability as key to countries’ survival in this turbulent century.

He argues one of the big threats to Canada’s adaptability is the health of the public service. Public servants’ risk aversion stems from a 50-year build-up of controls with new oversight watchdogs to improve accountability, he maintains. On top of that, bureaucrats face a new layer of political control, the growing arm of ministerial staffers he calls the “political service.”

“A country cannot be adaptable if its public service is incapable of taking new ideas and translating them into action efficiently,” he said.

Charette cautions a big challenge in sorting out the obstacles is “how we put a bias on agility and responsiveness without losing the due diligence we need as stewards of public resources and the public interest.”

Roberts joins Donald Savoie, Canada’s pre-eminent scholar on public administration, in calling for a royal commission on reforming the public service.

“We can’t expect public-service managers to have the kind of oversight bodies we have now looking over their shoulders every single day,” said Savoie.

The clerk’s role comes with the power and influence to lead a major reform, but Hannaford won’t have the time to do it, Savoie argues.

“It’s not that the incoming clerk is not up to it, but he is too busy. Too many crises thrown at him. Too many issues. Ministers bouncing around to keep under control. So many issues. I think what you needed is a parallel process, call it what you want, to look at these fundamental issues.”

…

Source: The public service is ailing. Janice Charette says organizational health is the next big challenge

Filed under Government Tagged with , ,

As the Canadian population passes 40 million, fast-growing provinces gain relatively fewer seats in Ottawa 

2023/06/27 Leave a comment

Will accentuate regional tensions over time:

When Canada’s population hit 40 million last week, it was a reminder that representation in the House of Commons will have to keep pace with the growing country. But although the number of MPs from Alberta and Ontario could grow over the next 20 years, those provinces risk becoming even more underrepresented as special clauses protect other provinces, such as Quebec.

Last month, the Journal de Montréal published a series of articles claiming Quebec will eventually become “trapped” by Ottawa and lose political power as immigration rates increase in the rest of the country.

“Quebec will find itself drowned in a sea of 100 million Canadians by the end of the century, if the massive immigration targets announced by the Trudeau government last fall materialize,” it said, referring to Ottawa’s plan to welcome as many as 500,000 immigrants a year in 2025. Premier François Legault said this was a threat to Quebec and the French language.

Even though the 100-million figure came from the Century Initiative advocacy group, not the federal government, Canada is well on its way to this kind of growth and could exceed 50 million people within the next 20 years.

Demographic growth, already overwhelmingly dependent on immigration, will be even more so as the population ages and birth rates remain low across all provinces, explained Marc Termote, an associate professor of demography at the University of Montreal.

Because Quebec’s share of immigration is and will likely remain much lower than its share of the Canadian population – the province is considering increasing its immigration target to 60,000 a year, about half of what it needs to keep up with the rest of the country – “Quebec will continue to lose demographic weight, and therefore political weight,” Prof. Termote said.

The Constitution requires that the number of seats in the House of Commons be recalculated every 10 years to reflect changes in Canada’s population according to the representation formula, which takes into account demographic growth and special clauses.

Under current law, provinces don’t lose seats – even when their share of the population falls. At the same time, the number of MPs is restricted by the formula, so fast-growing provinces gain relatively few seats.

“Quebec is ever so slightly overrepresented at the moment, but that’s going to become a flashpoint over the coming years if Quebec doesn’t grow faster than it has been,” said Richard Johnston, professor emeritus at the University of British Columbia’s department of political science.

In late 1997, as Canada was about to reach 30 million people, Ontario had 11.3 million residents while Quebec had 7.3 million, British Columbia had almost four million, Alberta had 2.8 million and Nova Scotia stood at fewer than a million.

During that year’s federal elections, Canadians voted in 301 electoral districts, carrying Prime Minister Jean Chrétien’s Liberal Party to a second majority government. At the time, Ontario had 103 seats, Quebec 75, B.C. 34, Alberta 26 and Nova Scotia 11.

That meant Ontario, even though it had the highest number of seats of any province as the country’s most populous, was underrepresented in Parliament. The same was true of B.C. and Alberta, while Quebec was slightly overrepresented and Nova Scotia more so.

Seats added in 2013 to Ontario, B.C. and Alberta as a result of the last decennial revision did not match their fast population growth, as Atlantic provinces, along with Manitoba and Saskatchewan, remain overrepresented in today’s 338-seat Parliament.

This dynamic will continue when Parliament grows to 343 seats, following the 2021 census, which should come into force in September.

Quebec, initially set to lose one riding with the revision, will keep 78 seats. Mr. Legault pushed back against the planned reduction at the time, saying that “the nation of Quebec deserves a certain level of representation in the House of Commons, regardless of the evolution of the number of inhabitants in each province.”

The federal government obliged and passed a bill amending the Constitution Act last year. It provided that no province can have fewer MPs than it had in 2019, which could lead to severe distortions in the decades to come.

According to Statistics Canada, the country’s population could hit the 50-million mark by 2043 if current immigration levels stay in place. In projections released last year, a high-growth scenario put it at 52.5 million people 20 years from now.

Under that scenario, Ontario (projected to reach 21.1 million), Alberta (7.2 million) and B.C. (7.4 million) would continue to outpace other provinces, while Quebec (10.2 million) would be left behind, like Atlantic Canada.

The number of MPs for the fastest-growing provinces would go up, but that would be unlikely to cause a fundamental shift in Ottawa under the current rules, UBC’s Prof. Johnston said, because of the embedded protections in the representation formula. “In fact, the underrepresentation of Ontario, Alberta and B.C. is probably going to get worse,” he said, even as their numbers of MPs grow. “The critical question is whether the rules are politically sustainable.”

Using today’s rules to compute what this would mean for the 2040s’ Parliament, Quebec, Manitoba, Saskatchewan and the Atlantic provinces would keep their current numbers of MPs even as their demographic weight continues to decrease and more ridings are added to other provinces, for a total of 362.

It would mean that Alberta, set to reach 13.6 per cent of the population in 2043 under a high-growth scenario, would claim 44 seats (or 12.2 per cent of the ridings), while Quebec – whose population growth alone would warrant a diminished number of seats if not for the fact that it is protected, like other overrepresented provinces, by special clauses – will keep 78 seats (21.5 per cent) for 19.4 per cent of the country’s population. Ontario would claim 131 seats (36.2 per cent) for 40.3 per cent of the population.

The representation formula, however, is not immutable, and changes could induce faster growth in ridings during the next two revisions, as happened after the 2011 census under Stephen Harper’s Conservative government in an attempt to “compensate for what was a systematic drag on the representation of the fastest-growing provinces,” Prof. Johnston said.

But demographic changes not only influence the number of seats in Parliament but many other resources as well. “Federal transfers – related to equalization, health care, postsecondary education, social assistance, child care – depend directly on the number of each province’s inhabitants,” Prof. Termote said. “As Quebec’s share in the total Canadian population will continue to decline, Quebec’s share in the total federal transfers will necessarily also decline.”

Source: As the Canadian population passes 40 million, fast-growing provinces gain relatively fewer seats in Ottawa

Filed under Government, Politics Tagged with ,

Cappe and Mitchell: Fixing Canada’s access to information regime will require more than just people power

2023/06/26 Leave a comment

Starts with changing the default to being open, as open data illustrates. But the reality that politicians tend to support more open government when in opposition and be “less enthusiastic” when in government is likely the fundamental obstacle. But modernizing the process and digitizing holdings should be doable:

The Globe and Mail has done Canadians a service by exposing the serious shortcomings in federal and provincial freedom of information (FOI) regimes. The reporting done as part of the Secret Canada project has shown that Canadians cannot get timely access to the information held by governments that they need, and to which they are legally entitled. Either the governments are egregiously slow in responding to access requests or, in far too many cases, they simply fail to provide the information requested. These delays are not simply frustrating; in far too many cases, they affect the material interests of Canadians who need to know what the government knows about them.

This problem is an important challenge to democratic governance in this country. But the solutions may not be obvious.

For example, simply adding more people, working millions more hours, to beleaguered access/FOI units in the federal and provincial governments will not solve the problem. Moreover, our Westminster system of government differs in fundamental ways from the municipal-government-style model with which most Canadians are familiar: Westminster government is cabinet government, where there is a fundamental requirement for secrecy to enable frank discussion among ministers and collective responsibility before the legislature, while municipal councils do their business in the open, as they should. But the obligations of openness differ in important ways between these two forms of government, and this can cause confusion.

To figure out solutions, we must understand the source of our access/FOI problem – and that lies with two fundamental features of the current regimes operated by both the federal and provincial governments.

First, the system we have is governed by the assumption that documents belong to government and are protected unless they can be allowed to be released. The result is that officials are obliged to spend an enormous amount of expensive time examining and redacting documents to protect information that, frankly, has no need of protection. Instead, governments should accept that the information they hold is inherently public, unless it falls within a limited set of exceptions to that rule, and make this information easy to access for citizens.

The second and more fundamental problem is that the laws were written, and governments are operating, in an analog world of paper and paper-based processes, while the needs and expectations of citizens reflect their experiences in a 21st-century digital world.

Today, people expect that information will be available instantly online. The notion that the information that someone is seeking from government is sitting in a filing cabinet somewhere in a remote government building seems laughable – but sadly, it is accurate. The fact is that today, a request for information is, in most cases, actually a request for a paper document that must be located then examined by a government official, then perhaps redacted in some way or other, and then physically transmitted to the person who made the access request. That process takes a huge amount of time and effort, and what’s more, it’s expensive: A recent Treasury Board study revealed that the estimated per-page cost of a document released under the federal access to information program is $11.40, and pegs the total cost to administer the program at $195-million a year. Pro-active disclosure, by contrast, would cost a federal department or agency only $64,000 a year on average.

To solve the problem, we should first recognize a clear distinction between information that should be accessible – namely, almost all of it – and information that, for good reason, should be protected.

We should also recognize that different kinds of information require different forms of protection. Tax data require privacy protection, for instance; this is an essential obligation of government to citizens and is fundamental to our “self-reporting” system of tax collection. Discussions in cabinet and advice to ministers need protection to enable the giving of frank advice and to allow for candour around the cabinet table. National security and intelligence records need protection to protect the security of the country; commercial negotiations, as well as federal-provincial and international negotiations, require protection so as to protect individual and national interests.

All these protections should be pretty much absolute. After that, one can apply a harm test to protect the information, if that is necessary. Otherwise, the default position should be that the information held by governments is readily accessible.

Furthermore, in our digital world, not every digital artifact in government should be deemed a “record” for the purposes of access to information. For example, every e-mail and every telephone call inside government is currently regarded, in principle, as a digital record. These should not be considered a record, for the purposes of the Act. Why not? Well, not every request for access is benign; some requests are motivated, quite legitimately, by a political or journalistic interest in simply embarrassing the government or finding information on a competitor. And if all exchanges among public servants were made public, then people simply would not communicate digitally any more. If casual exchanges among public servants are to be accessible then fear of embarrassing the government or themselves would be a chill on frank exchanges.

So how can we best reform the access/FOI regime at the federal or provincial level to better respect the rights and expectations of citizens, while still protecting the legitimate interests of individuals, governments and the country?

Firstly, as noted, start by recognizing the principles of confidentiality of ministerial discussions that underpin Westminster parliamentary democracy.

Secondly, change the default position for access/FOI from one of protecting secrecy to that of making records releasable unless this would violate clearly defined principles of secrecy or privacy. In cases of doubt, apply a clearly defined justiciable harm test for disclosure.

Thirdly, set out well-defined categories of protected documents (e.g., cabinet confidences, national security and intelligence information, and tax information and other records protected by privacy concerns) in the law.

And finally – and perhaps most importantly – begin the essential task of changing the information holdings of government from analog to digital, and amend search and disclosure processes in the same manner. Emphasize the creation of searchable databases which allow for low compliance costs in government and what is equally important, low private search costs. Recognize the social and public costs of compliance in government (high) vs. the private costs of private search of public records (low).

The Globe is right – the system is broken. Canadians are not being well-served. But we can’t fix the system by simply opening it up. We must understand why it’s broken and what it should look like in future if the interests of Canadians are to be protected.

Mel Cappe is a professor at the Munk School of Global Affairs and Public Policy and a former clerk of the Privy Council. James Mitchell is an adjunct professor at Carleton University and a former assistant secretary to the Cabinet, Machinery of Government.

Source: Fixing Canada’s access to information regime will require more than just people power

Filed under Government Tagged with , ,

Canada’s public service is stuck in ‘analog’ and the world ‘has moved on’: Former clerk

2023/06/26 Leave a comment

All too true but she was understandably more cautious when DM at ESDC and the initial vision of Service Canada was to move to digital and give greater priority to service delivery considerations and simplification centred around citizens, not programs:

The public service is not keeping pace with Canadians’ needs in a digital world, says the woman who used to lead it.

“The public service is still working in what I would describe as kind of analog ways and the world has moved on,” former clerk of the Privy Council Janice Charette, told Rosemary Barton Live in an interview airing Sunday.

“You can make a dinner reservation, you can book a cruise, you can move money in and out of your bank account, transfer between the two of us — it’s remarkable the things you can do in a digital world and the public service, and our service delivery infrastructure has not kept up with that.”

It’s a gap that Charette said was on display when the public service couldn’t deliver services such as passports once COVID-19 restrictions were lifted.

“In all humility, we know we have to do a better job there,” she said.

Proud of initial pandemic response

Charette, who refers to her job as being “steward of one of the most important institutions in our democracy,” retired Friday after nearly 40 years in the service, including stints as clerk for prime ministers Stephen Harper and Justin Trudeau.

Reflecting on her tenure, Charette said she’s proud of the way the public service jumped into action during the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, spending billions to support people and businesses.

“One of the things I completely believe about public service is that in a crisis we can be magnificent,” she said.

“Decisions had to move quickly, benefits had to move quickly … and the challenge is, how do you maintain that going forward?”

As the lockdowns lifted, services lagged and frustrations grew.

The government was put on the defensive last year when passport offices were overwhelmed by a surge of applications.

The immigration department was also caught on its back foot by demand. At one point last year more than 2.4 million applications were stuck waiting for processing.

“I think in the public service maybe we underestimated how quickly people were going to want to return to their lives, how quickly they were gonna want to travel and have their passports, and how quickly we were gonna start the immigration system, how much people were going to want to move,” Charette said.

“This was not the best of times for the public service because we underestimated that ramp-up.”

Charette defends outside contracts

Another issue for her successor, John Hannaford, will be how to handle procuring outside consultations.

The auditor general is reviewing the millions of dollars worth of contracts the federal government awarded to management consulting firm McKinsey & Company following news reports.

Charette said she believes there are times when it makes sense to bring in outside experts.

“The public service is not and never should be seen as a source of all knowledge,” she said.

“There are many cases where, whether it’s something which is a temporary need or a specialized kind of need, that we don’t want to build it inside the public service. It’s actually more economical and more efficient and maybe better for the public that we actually go out and get external expertise.”

Besides being the head of the public service, the clerk acts as the deputy minister to the prime minister and secretary to the cabinet.

“I have had the honour of sitting in the cabinet room for some of the most fascinating conversations about issues that really matter to Canadians,” Charette told Barton.

That would have included the tense discussions in February 2022 around whether or not the government should invoke the Emergencies Act.

Didn’t want to be ‘intimidated’ by Emergencies Act decision

As clerk, Charette recommended the government use the never-before-used law to clear anti-public health measure protests that had gridlocked downtown Ottawa for nearly a month.

That decision thrust her into the spotlight when she was later called to testify at the Public Order Emergency Commission last fall and defended her rationale.

While Commissioner Paul Rouleau ultimately ruled that the federal government met the threshold needed to invoke the Emergencies Act, the government’s decision remains polarizing for many across the country.

Charette said she couldn’t let the unprecedented use of the act scare her and other decision-makers away from using it if it was needed.

“I remember very much thinking we have never used this piece of legislation, so implicit in that is you’re going to make history, but you also don’t want to be intimidated by that either,” she said.

“The public service is known for being risk-averse. You don’t want to bring a bias, ‘Oh my gosh, it’s such a big thing. Oh, maybe we shouldn’t do it.’ Is it the right instrument at the right time with all the right protections around it?”

Charette said many protesters had “totally legitimate questions.”

“There’s only so long you can kind of hold people back. Then there’s like, OK, well, what about me? What about my interest in my family’s interest?” she said.

“The concern for me was this other element that we saw creeping into it and it almost felt like there some taking advantage of what was a widespread protest, a widespread debate going on, by people who had a different point to make.”

Source: Canada’s public service is stuck in ‘analog’ and the world ‘has moved on’: Former clerk

Filed under Government Tagged with , ,

Conservative MPs furious after e-mails show federal officials worked on ways not to answer their questions

2023/06/22 Leave a comment

Understandable (but have been guilty myself when in government):

Federal public servants worked on ways not to answer directly opposition MPs’ parliamentary questions, admitting that doing so raised a communication risk, internal government documents obtained under access to information show.

Civil servants in the Natural Resources Department recommended the use of “limitation language” to answer the written Commons questions from Conservative and NDP MPs, internal e-mails show.

The revelation prompted Commons Speaker Anthony Rota to issue a rebuke Tuesday over the failure to fully answer written questions, saying more and more MPs were complaining about the quality of replies.

He said all MPs, regardless of which party they are from, have a right to expect full and factual responses to requests for information from the government.

MPs deserved accurate answers “regardless of their name, reputation or political affiliation,” Mr. Rota said. “Written questions and the responses to them are central parts of the process of accountability,” he added.

MPs often table written questions to get information from the government, which has to respond within 45 days. But this week Tory MPs expressed dismay after internal e-mails, obtained through access to information, suggested politically neutral public servants had used evasive tactics when replying to their questions.

Calgary Conservative Michelle Rempel Garner tabled an access request after one of her questions to the Natural Resources Department was not completely answered. She asked for details about the U.S. military funding mining projects.

One Natural Resources official approving the response to Ms. Rempel Garner wrote: “Response does not answer questions directly, but provides a response to the spirit of the questions. PAU has confirmed that this approach is appropriate.”

The MP says she was shocked to discover that dozens of federal officials had been consulted in drawing up the response, including those from the communications department. Her question was branded “high risk” and the reply was framed using existing “media lines” used to respond to journalists.

The internal e-mails showed public servants referred to her position as a former opposition critic when framing the reply, saying because she was an “effective communicator” it raised a risk of her highlighting their failure to fully answer her question.

“There is some communications risk resulting from the use of high-level limitation language that does not answer the written question from an MP who is an effective communicator and former Natural resources critic,” says the communication assessment of Natural Resources’ response to Ms. Rempel Garner’s question.

The e-mails also discuss the prospect of the Speaker of the House of Commons ruling on the issue of her unanswered question.

“I’m expecting the Speaker to tut tut and then say it is not for him to judge the quality of a response but we will see,” said an e-mail from Kyle Harrietha, who is deputy chief of staff to the Natural Resources Minister.

Ms. Rempel Garner said the documents made it “very clear they factored in my partisan position” when preparing the reply to her question.

The internal e-mails include a table of questions to the Natural Resources Minister from MPs, including Conservatives Garnett Genuis, Dan Albas and NDP MP Blake Desjarlais, who asked about funding for First Nations. The communication assessments reveal that “limitation language” was used in framing their replies.

Mr. Albas told The Globe that replies are meant to be “fact-based” and it was wrong for government officials to apply a “communications lens” to responses.

One Natural Resources document discusses its response to the question from Mr. Albas.

“NRCan [Natural Resources Canada’s] answer uses limitation language and does not disclose specific cancelled contracts from the time period requested,” it says. “Communications risk appears low and depends on whether NRCan stands out among all departments answering.”

Conservative MPs Shannon Stubbs and Brad Redekopp also raised concerns Tuesday in the Commons about incomplete replies from government departments to their written questions, including those seeking facts to help their constituents.

Mr. Rota said the comments of public servants involved in replying to MPs’ questions, disclosed under access to information, were “troubling.”

The Speaker said he had noticed that MPs are questioning more and more the quality of answers to their questions. He urged ministers “to find the right words to inspire their officials to invest their time and energy in preparing high-quality responses, rather than looking for reasons to avoid answering written questions.”

A spokesman for Natural Resources Minister Jonathan Wilkinson said he had responded to Ms. Rempel Garner’s question about mineral projects active in Canada.

“The Minister did so in a way that adhered to the advice provided to him by officials with respect to sensitive information involving international affairs and defence, scientific and technical information, commercial sensitivity, and ongoing negotiations,” saidKeean Nembhard, the minister’s spokesman.

In the Senate, Conservative Leader Don Plett said he has been waiting since 2020 for answers to some of his written questions. He accused the government of a disregard for “proper parliamentary process.”

Source: Conservative MPs furious after e-mails show federal officials worked on ways not to answer their questions

Filed under Government Tagged with , ,

Deputy minister left government weeks after Indigenous group privately called for his resignation, documents show

2023/06/21 Leave a comment

Cancel culture, Canadian government style…

A deputy minister’s recent departure from the federal public service occurred just weeks after a national Indigenous organization privately called for his resignation over an e-mail dismissing their description of colonialism as “a gross misreading of history.”

Timothy Sargent’s nearly three-decade career in the federal public service – which included representing Canada internationally on trade and finance files – ended without a public explanation in October when Prime Minister Justin Trudeau announced a shuffle of deputy ministers.

The news release named a new deputy minister of Fisheries and Oceans, but made no mention of Mr. Sargent, who had been in that job since early 2019. Normally such news releases thank senior officials for their service if they are retiring or leaving for another position.

Internal e-mails and letters obtained by The Globe and Mail through Access to Information – as well as additional details provided by government officials – reveal his departure followed months of behind-the-scenes controversy over an e-mail he wrote in May, 2022.

Government officials told The Globe that Fisheries Minister Joyce Murray became personally involved in the matter, apologizing to the recipient of the e-mail and raising her deputy minister’s actions with Janice Charette, the Clerk of the Privy Council and head of the public service.

The controversy began in May when Mr. Sargent received a letter of invitation signed by Dawn Madahbee Leach, chair of the National Indigenous Economic Development Board, a small organization based in Gatineau supported financially by the federal government that provides advice to Ottawa on policy and ministerial appointments.

The letter invited Mr. Sargent to attend a luncheon hosted by Deloitte Canada to launch a National Indigenous Economic Strategy for Canada. The letter said “one of colonialism’s most nefarious objectives was the deliberate exclusion of Indigenous people from sharing the wealth of our country. This strategy is a path forward towards economic reconciliation that is both inclusive and meaningful.”

The letter was e-mailed to Mr. Sargent by public affairs consultant Isabelle Metcalfe on May 30, 2022.

Mr. Sargent responded the next morning with a one-sentence e-mail to Ms. Metcalfe and Mario Iacobacci of Deloitte.

“I shall certainly not attend an event which is premised on a gross misreading of history,” he wrote.

Ms. Metcalfe promptly forwarded Mr. Sargent’s response to Ms. Madahbee Leach, who then e-mailed Mr. Sargent that evening to express regret regarding his position.

“In the spirit of reconciliation, I would welcome the opportunity to discuss with you your response in an effort to salvage the opportunity for you to attend the event and learn,” she wrote on May 31.

About a month later, Mr. Sargent sent a two-page letter of apology to Ms. Madahbee Leach, dated June 29.

“I fully acknowledge that my response was inappropriate and illustrated a lack of awareness of and sensitivity to the many challenges and barriers, past and present, faced by Indigenous people to fully and equitably participate in Canadian society and the economy,” the letter stated. “I would like to make restitution for the harm that this has caused, both to the Department’s reputation but also to the fact that is exactly the kind of thing that points to systemic racism at the highest levels of government.”

The letter ended with a request for a meeting.

The documents show Mr. Sargent e-mailed a copy of the letter to Ms. Charette, the PCO Clerk, as well as Daniel Quan-Watson, the deputy minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations, and Christiane Fox, the then-deputy minister of Indigenous Services.

“Colleague, you will find attached a letter I sent earlier today to Ms. Dawn Madahbee Leach expressing my sincere remorse over language used in a reply to an invitation to the launch of the National Indigenous Economic Strategy,” he wrote in the e-mail, which was released in a partly redacted form. “I also want to thank you for your support both over the past several years but also more recently through this time.”

On Sept. 9, the National Indigenous Economic Development Board (NIEDB) sent Mr. Sargent a new letter from Ms. Madahbee Leach, with copies to Mr. Trudeau, Ms. Charette, some federal ministers, the Assembly of First Nations, the Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami and the Métis National Council.

The letter acknowledged Mr. Sargent’s letter of apology but said his original comments appear to be at odds with the 2015 Truth and Reconciliation Commissioner’s Report, the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples and many Supreme Court of Canada rulings.

“Your response to our invitation is particularly shocking in that, as a senior official, it appears that you do not agree with, or believe in, the findings of these vital and fundamental documents. The boldness with which you confidently and openly shared your thoughts that we were presenting a ‘gross misrepresentation of history’ is a prime example of systemic racism at the highest levels of government,” she wrote.

The letter said the sincerity of his letter of apology “is greatly diminished” by the fact that it was only received after his superiors had been informed of the e-mail. It said that after careful consideration and after receiving input from a variety of Indigenous leaders, the NIEDB “firmly believes that a senior official holding the views that you have expressed should no longer serve in any capacity in the federal public service, or in any other government or affiliated entity.”

Mr. Sargent declined to comment on the issue when reached by phone Thursday at the Centre for the Study of Living Standards, where he now works as the deputy executive director. He is also a Distinguished Fellow at the Centre for International Governance Innovation.

Prior to leading the Fisheries Department, he was the deputy minister of International Trade during the negotiation of the Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement. He has also worked as a senior Finance Department official with responsibility for the G7 and G20.

In response to questions from The Globe, Jeff Woodland, a spokesperson for the Fisheries Minister, provided a statement saying Ms. Murray was “deeply disappointed” to learn of Mr. Sargent’s e-mail.

“The comments were unacceptable and inappropriate,” the statement said, adding that Ms. Murray raised the issue with the PCO Clerk and spoke with Ms. Madahbee Leach “to apologize on behalf of the government and department.”

PCO spokesperson Stéphane Shank said an acting deputy minister assumed Mr. Sargent’s role as of late June, 2022, before a permanent replacement was named on Oct. 31. The PCO said Mr. Sargent submitted his resignation effective Oct. 12.

“PCO cannot comment on individual circumstances in accordance with the Privacy Act,” Mr. Shank said.

In an interview, Ms. Madahbee Leach said Mr. Sargent’s initial e-mail was unsettling and he never took up her invitation to discuss the issue directly. She said she felt Ms. Murray and her office handled the situation well.

“They were also very shocked,” she said. “When they see something in writing like this, it was quite something.”

Source: Deputy minister left government weeks after Indigenous group privately called for his resignation, documents show

Filed under Aboriginal, Government Tagged with , ,

Clark: The mandate letter Trudeau’s ministers must have received

2023/06/17 Leave a comment

On the lighter side, good pointed satire:

Dec. 31, 2021

Dear ministers,

From the beginning, our government has been seized with its responsibility to act on important information brought to the attention of ministers. However, too much information is being brought to the attention of ministers, making them appear responsible for acting on it.

At the outset of our third term I am issuing this supplementary mandate letter to ministers regarding the handling of documents and information.

Previous protocols have proven inadequate, as noted when the Ombudsman of the Department of National Defence attempted to present written allegations of sexual misconduct by the then-chief of the defence staff to the former minister of defence, Harjit Sajjan.

Although Mr. Sajjan’s instincts were correct, his response on that occasion – shouting “No” and walking away – left the impression that he could have taken more responsibility. Mr. Sajjan will now take on new functions, but, lessons learned, he was careful not to read too many e-mails in his remaining time as defence minister, even when Afghanistan was falling to the Taliban.

Moving forward, ministers are reminded of their duty to ensure proper information flow.

Briefing notes and e-mails are regularly sent to ministerial offices and must be triaged by staff to ensure only appropriate material is forwarded to busy ministers.

This is particularly the case for ministers responsible for autonomous entities in sensitive areas, such as new Public Safety Minister Marco Mendicino, whose portfolio includes intelligence, police and corrections agencies.

A Public Safety Minister who receives written advice from police would find it more difficult to speak publicly about the advice he or she did not receive verbally. Several organizations in the portfolio have the potential to inform the Minister of inconvenient situations, such as the transfer of a notorious murderer to medium-security prison.

Staff should ensure that e-mails and memos in the three “no-no” categories – nothing we can do, nothing we want to do, and nothing we want to know about – are kept from the Minister’s eyes.

Staff who receive such e-mails will have ample time to prepare talking points for the Minister expressing her or his shock at the news, with a promise to review the process for the future.

Intelligence matters are of the utmost importance and secret information must be managed carefully to ensure the wrong kind is not presented to the Minister. Intelligence memos are to be categorized as either “for action” or “for awareness.”

“For action” reports are, by their nature, never to be presented to ministers. They should instead forwarded to the appropriate intelligence-review officer’s desk (see org. chart fig. 8) for assignment to the responsible official, if any.

“For awareness” reports are critical in the intelligence-information system, and though their contents can be known, it cannot be known if the Minister is aware of them.

Such memos circulate information to intelligence consumers in a way that implies appropriate action has or will be taken without indicating how or by whom, increasing the number of people not responsible for not doing anything.

In limited cases, the director of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service will determine when a specific item must be presented to the Minister of Public Safety in an issues-management note – a document that must be managed so it does not become an issue for the Minister.

This is done via a protocol established by former public safety minister Bill Blair, based conceptually on drawings of staircases by the artist M.C. Escher.

Under this protocol, CSIS “shares” highly-sensitive alerts, such as warnings about hostile states targeting members of Parliament, by transmitting notes for the Minister by a secure electronic-messaging system to which the Minister does not have access. Officials print such materials for the attention of the Minister but the Minister never lets the material be “shared” with him.

The shared-not-shared nexus is augmented by circulating the material to deputy ministers on vacation but, for security reasons, destroying it before their return. This ensures more people are not responsible for not getting the memo.

In keeping with the protocols above, ministers should ensure this letter is not shared with them, just as it has not been shared with me. Further guidance for appearances before parliamentary committees on such issues can be obtained by consulting the handbook for ministers entitled, “Not that I recall at this time.”

Signed,

[REDACTED] for Prime Minister Justin Trudeau

Source: The mandate letter Trudeau’s ministers must have received

Filed under Government Tagged with ,

Incoming sponsored travel rules for lobbyists will limit ‘educational opportunity’ for MPs and Senators, say CIJA and Results Canada

2023/06/13 Leave a comment

Give me a break, this is lobbying pure and simple, designed to influence, not educate:

Two groups that provide travel programs to parliamentarians are concerned that forthcoming changes to the Lobbyists’ Code of Conduct that will include sponsored travel in rules about gifts will limit their ability to provide MPs and Senators with first-hand experiences in foreign policy and international development issues.

“We don’t use these missions as a gift, but rather as an opportunity for parliamentarians to understand a very complicated region in the world,” said Shimon Koffler Fogel, president and CEO of the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs (CIJA). “We explicitly indicate in the invitation that there are no strings attached, there are no expectations of the participants other than that they attend all parts of the program, because it’s essential for them to get that whole view. In and of itself, it’s not a lobbying exercise, it’s an educational opportunity.”

“There’s nothing that beats the real impact of seeing [work] on the ground, of talking to a patient whose life has been changed, or talking to a mom who in years previously had no kids that were vaccinated, but now, five out of her six are vaccinated, and the sixth one is in the queue,” said Chris Dendys, executive director of Results Canada. “So, it’s about the tangibility of literally getting your shoes dirty, having real conversations with frontline community health workers, visiting hospitals and clinics that are far from urban centres and seeing the great work that is being done.” 

The updated Lobbyists’ Code of Conduct will come into force on July 1. It states that lobbyists should “never provide any gift—directly or indirectly—to an official that you lobby or expect to lobby, other than a low‑value gift that is a token of appreciation or promotional item.” The accompanying definitions include “travel, including sponsored travel, an excursion, transportation” under its description of gifts.” The “low-value” criteria is set at a maximum of $40 per gift and an annual maximum of $200.

The code permits the commissioner to grant exemptions to the rule by considering several factors, including whether the gift is related to the exercise of a power, duty or function of the official. If an exemption is granted, the commissioner can impose conditions on the lobbyist, such as a cooling-off period during which they cannot lobby the official.

Lobbying Commissioner Nancy Bélanger told The Hill Times in an interview on May 29 that the code was worded so that lobbyists can still offer sponsored travel to individual parliamentarians, provided they do not intend to lobby them. 

“If they want to lobby them, despite the fact that they’ve given them sponsored travel, they’re going to have to ask for an exemption,” she said. “Depending on the circumstances, we would possibly say, ‘The gift can be given; however, you will have a cooling-off period where you cannot lobby until the sense of obligation is reduced.’ … [that is] how it’s going to have to work.”

Fogel said CIJA does not consider its programs to be a gift to public office holders (POHs). The centre, which has been continuously registered to lobby since Feb. 17, 2005, describes its sponsored travel programs on its website as “fact-finding missions to Israel for Canadian influencers and decision-makers.”

“I think where the difference of opinion is and where we think [the commissioner’s] understanding is not complete is that these programs that we undertake are not a gift. There’s no quid pro quo, there’s no expectation that they’re going to come back and adopt CIJA’s position on any of 100 different issues,” Fogel said. “What we believe is that our constituents consider these issues important enough that they want their public office holders to have a good understanding of the situation rather than the kind of superficial one that one gets by just reading headlines and looking at social media posts.”

CIJA’s submission to the first draft of the updated code of conduct, released in December 2021, asked that sponsored travel remain available to POHs. 

“Our missions to Israel (and the Palestinian Authority) are rigorous and, in short, designed to ensure that the POH experiences the highest possible quality and range of insights and background knowledge of the region,” the submission said.

Results Canada also mentioned sponsored travel in a joint submission to the House Ethics Committee’s (ETHI) study of the lobbyists’ code with World Vision Canada and the Canadian Foodgrains Bank in March 2023. The three international development organizations asked the committee to recommend that sponsored travel be specifically exempted from the application of the gifts rule, and for hospitality costs incurred while hosting parliamentarians on sponsored travel to be similarly exempted.

“We provide opportunities for experiential learning and evidence gathering, allowing parliamentarians to learn first-hand the enormous impact of Canadian organizations and the Government of Canada in international development,” the submission said. “This unique experience cannot be replicated by reading reports.”

Results Canada’s Dendys told The Hill Times that the organization has hosted parliamentary delegations overseas approximately once a year since 2007, with a break during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic. The non-profit advocates for policies and monetary investments to improve health, education, and economic outcomes across the world to eliminate extreme poverty. 

Dendys said the delegations’ value lies in giving parliamentarians a first-hand view of where Canadian international development investments were making a difference.

The most recent delegation was in January, when Liberal MPs Valerie Bradford (Kitchener South–Hespeler, Ont.) and Iqwinder Gaheer (Mississauga–Malton, Ont.), and Conservative MPs Scott Aitchison (Parry Sound–Muskoka, Ont.) and Eric Melillo (Kenora, Ont.) travelled to Kenya.

Results Canada has been continuously registered to lobby federally since Sept. 26, 2011; World Vision Canada since March 22, 2005; and Canadian Foodgrains Bank since Feb. 24, 2005. 

Dendys described the decision to include sponsored travel as a gift in the lobbyists’ code as disappointing. She said her organization was still considering the effect it will have on its work.

“As of right now, our days of providing parliamentarians with on-site experiences will draw to a conclusion unless there’s another review or there’s some amendments,” she said. “It was always just one facet of our overall approach to educating, inspiring and hopefully engaging parliamentarians to become champions. It’s just unfortunate that this very unique and special educational opportunity that organizations like Results and others were providing is seemingly no longer part of the tools in the toolkit.”

Liberal MP John McKay (Scarborough–Guildwood, Ont.) told the House during members’ statements on May 8 that he joined Results Canada on a delegation to Kenya in 2007, “which was far from being a junket; rather, it was a slum tour. Nairobi has some of the biggest slums in the world. What I remember most is the smell of open sewers and the chronic overcrowding.”

Dendys said alternatives to sponsoring parliamentarians’ travel could include closer collaboration with parliamentary associations that have planned delegations to other countries. “It’s also looking at when parliamentarians are travelling anyway, to see if we can inform that travel,” she said.

One solution could be a return to “virtual delegations” held at the height of the pandemic, she said. In February 2022, eight MPs and two Senators took part in such an event with their counterparts in Kenya, alongside health care workers, experts, and advocates in both countries.

CIJA’s Fogel said his organization take its regulatory obligations seriously, and have started consultations with its legal counsel to ensure that the centre fully understands the nuances of the updates before taking the next steps.

“I’m hopeful that we’ll be able to, down the road, see some reconsideration, because everybody has said that they’re valuable experiences. What no-one will say, however, is that they’re a vacation,” he said.

ETHI’s letter to the commissioner supported the call to exempt sponsored travel from the gift rule. 

But Bélanger said in her reply to the committee that she was not persuaded “that automatically exempting sponsored travel from the gift rule would be consistent with the fundamental objectives and expectations set out in the code, including that lobbyists avoid placing officials in conflict of interest situations and that they do not lobby officials who could reasonably be seen to have a sense of obligation towards them.”

She said the rule does not “prevent parliamentarians from accepting sponsored travel. Rather, this rule has been carefully crafted to preclude lobbyists from providing gifts (other than low value tokens of appreciation and promotional items) to officials they lobby or expect to lobby. In practice, this means that lobbyists will not be allowed to lobby officials to whom they have provided sponsored travel.”

The Hill Times reached out to ETHI members to ask about their response to the commissioner’s letter, including Conservative ethics critic Michael Barrett (Leeds–Grenville–Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, Ont.), Liberal MP and ETHI vice-chair Iqra Khalid (Mississauga—Erin Mills, Ont.), Bloc Québécois ethics critic and ETHI vice-chair René Villemure (Trois-Rivières, Que.), and NDP ethics critic Matthew Green (Hamilton Centre, Ont.). Responses were not received by deadline.

Section 15 of the MP Conflict of Interest Code permits MPs to accept sponsored travel “that arises from his or her duties.” Members must disclose any travel that exceeds $200 and is not paid in full by the MP, their party or a recognized parliamentary association, or from the consolidated revenue fund, to the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner within 60 days.

During the Procedure and House Affairs Committee’s most recent review of the code in 2022, members found that the current rule “provides sufficient transparency and accountability, and is in-line with current best practices for the prevention of real or perceived conflicts of interest.” The House agreed to the committee’s report on March 30, 2023.

The Ethics and Confict of Interest Code for Senators has a similar rule in place, with a higher threshold of travel costs exceeding $500. The Senate Ethics Officer published a guideline related to sponsored travel in July 2021, which includes a list of questions for senators to consider before accepting sponsored travel. The questions include: “Is the payor or the sponsor a registered lobbyist? If yes, what is the purpose for which they are lobbying?” and “Would the senator, the sponsor or the payor violate legislation, such as the Criminal Code or the Lobbying Act?”

Source: Incoming sponsored travel rules for lobbyists will limit ‘educational opportunity’ for MPs and Senators, say CIJA and Results Canada

Filed under Government Tagged with , , , , ,

Ivison: Liberals’ passport redesign latest attempt to reshape Canada’s symbols

2023/05/05 Leave a comment

Valid critique: “But the criticism remains the same for the Liberals as it was for the Conservatives — it should not be the sole preserve of political parties to present their own vision of the country as a fait accompli, without consultation or debate with its citizens,” even if some of the proposed changes have merit (while some do not):
The Liberals are engaged in a “radical” redesign of the Canadian passport that is likely to leave it looking very different, including replacing the Royal Coat of Arms on the cover and substituting pictures of the Fathers of Confederation, the National Vimy Memorial, the RCMP and the Stanley Cup with images “more reflective of what Canada is today,” sources say.
The changes will be announced in the coming weeks and be introduced in July, according to one official.The government is obliged to update security features every five years to embed new anti-counterfeit measures, but the Liberals have not modernized the passport since coming to power. The current passport contains a hidden chip to prevent forgeries and officials say the new technology being employed is “world-renowned and state of the art.”

According to a senior government official: “The new passport will feature state-of-the-art security measures that are critical in protecting the integrity of our passport system and in line with best practices and international standards.”

As with past governments, the Liberals are using the security overhaul to feature images that more closely reflect their values, including more prominent representation of women and Indigenous Canadians.

The Trudeau government is even said to have investigated the concept of changing the dark blue passport to Liberal red — an idea that has apparently been put on hold, subject to quality testing.It is the latest example of the Trudeau government making a calculated effort to reshape Canada’s symbols to reflect its own values.

The National Post reported earlier this week that Ottawa is set to unveil a new design for the Canadian Crown that sits atop the Royal Coat of Arms in time for the Coronation of King Charles this weekend. The so-called “Trudeau Crown” removes all religious imagery — crosses and Fleur-de-lis — and replaces them with maple leafs and snowflakes, sources said.

Nothing is new in politics and governments of all stripes have tried to redefine what it means to be Canadian by introducing symbols that more closely reflect their agenda.In late 2009, then Immigration minister Jason Kenney, unveiled a new Canadian Citizenship Guide that he said focused on the history, values and institutions of Canada. The booklet provided detailed accounts of Canada’s wars and emphasized the obligations that come with citizenship.

Kenney was heavily criticized at the time when it emerged he had taken steps to nix references to gay rights and same sex marriage.

The Conservatives also ordered all foreign embassies and consulates to display portraits of the Queen, reinstated the word “Royal” in the titles of the air force and navy, and bankrolled the commemoration of the War of 1812 (while ignoring the anniversary of the 1982 Charter of Rights and Freedoms).

Critics at the time accused the Conservatives of politicizing history and adopting a “Victorian” view that highlighted militarism, monarchism and imperialism. Defenders of the new symbols pointed out that Canada has long struggled with the idea of what it means to be Canadian and the Conservatives’ more “muscular” image was intended to articulate a national identity.

We have not yet seen the Liberal passport or even the redesigned Canadian Crown, so judgment must necessarily be reserved.

But if the Harper government was intent on erasing all symbols introduced by Trudeau senior, it is fair to suggest the Liberals’ co-ordinated campaign is aimed at wiping away all vestiges of the Harper years.

It all smacks a bit of Seinfeld’s George Constanza choosing to do the opposite of his natural inclination — if the Conservatives leaned heavily on the military and the monarchy, the opposite would have to be right.

But the criticism remains the same for the Liberals as it was for the Conservatives — it should not be the sole preserve of political parties to present their own vision of the country as a fait accompli, without consultation or debate with its citizens.

Source: Liberals’ passport redesign latest attempt to reshape Canada’s symbols

Filed under Government, Multiculturalism Tagged with ,

← Older posts

Newer posts →