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 ,

This company adopted AI. Here’s what happened to its human workers

2023/05/04 Leave a comment

This is a really interesting study. Given that it involved call centres and customer support, IRCC, ESDC, CRA and others should be studying this example of how to improve productivity and citizen service:

Lately, it’s felt like technological change has entered warp speed. Companies like OpenAI and Google have unveiled new Artificial Intelligence systems with incredible capabilities, making what once seemed like science fiction an everyday reality. It’s an era that is posing big, existential questions for us all, about everything from literally the future of human existence to — more to the focus of Planet Money — the future of human work.

“Things are changing so fast,” says Erik Brynjolfsson, a leading, technology-focused economist based at Stanford University.

Back in 2017, Brynjolfsson published a paper in one of the top academic journals, Science, which outlined the kind of work that he believed AI was capable of doing. It was called “What Can Machine Learning Do? Workforce Implications.” Now, Brynjolfsson says, “I have to update that paper dramatically given what’s happened in the past year or two.”

Sure, the current pace of change can feel dizzying and kinda scary. But Brynjolfsson is not catastrophizing. In fact, quite the opposite. He’s earned a reputation as a “techno-optimist.” And, recently at least, he has a real reason to be optimistic about what AI could mean for the economy.

Last week, Brynjolfsson, together with MIT economists Danielle Li and Lindsey R. Raymond, released what is, to the best of our knowledge, the first empirical study of the real-world economic effects of new AI systems. They looked at what happened to a company and its workers after it incorporated a version of ChatGPT, a popular interactive AI chatbot, into workflows.

What the economists found offers potentially great news for the economy, at least in one dimension that is crucial to improving our living standards: AI caused a group of workers to become much more productive. Backed by AI, these workers were able to accomplish much more in less time, with greater customer satisfaction to boot. At the same time, however, the study also shines a spotlight on just how powerful AI is, how disruptive it might be, and suggests that this new, astonishing technology could have economic effects that change the shape of income inequality going forward.

The Rise Of Cyborg Customer Service Reps

The story of this study starts a few years ago, when an unnamed Fortune 500 company — Brynjolfsson and his colleagues have not gotten permission to disclose its identity — decided to adopt an earlier version of OpenAI’s ChatGPT. This AI system is an example of what computer scientists call “generative AI” and also a “Large Language Model,” systems that have crunched a ton of data — especially text — and learned word patterns that enable them to do things like answer questions and write instructions.

This company provides other companies with administrative software. Think like programs that help businesses do accounting and logistics. A big part of this company’s job is helping its customers, mostly small businesses, with technical support.

The company’s customer support agents are based primarily in the Philippines, but also the United States and other countries. And they spend their days helping small businesses tackle various kinds of technical problems with their software. Think like, “Why am I getting this error message?” or like, “Help! I can’t log in!”

Instead of talking to their customers on the phone, these customer service agents mostly communicate with them through online chat windows. These troubleshooting sessions can be quite long. The average conversation between the agents and customers lasts about 40 minutes. Agents need to know the ins and outs of their company’s software, how to solve problems, and how to deal with sometimes irate customers. It’s a stressful job, and there’s high turnover. In the broader customer service industry, up to 60 percent of reps quit each year.

Facing such high turnover rates, this software company was spending a lot of time and money training new staffers. And so, in late 2020, it decided to begin using an AI system to help its constantly churning customer support staff get better at their jobs faster. The company’s goal was to improve the performance of their workers, not replace them.

Now, when the agents look at their computer screens, they don’t only see a chat window with their customers. They also see another chat window with an AI chatbot, which is there to help them more effectively assist customers in real time. It advises them on what to potentially write to customers and also provides them with links to internal company information to help them more quickly find solutions to their customers’ technical problems.

This interactive chatbot was trained by reading through a ton of previous conversations between reps and customers. It has recognized word patterns in these conversations, identifying key phrases and common problems facing customers and how to solve them. Because the company tracks which conversations leave its customers satisfied, the AI chatbot also knows formulas that often lead to success. Think, like, interactions that customers give a 5 star rating. “I’m so sorry you’re frustrated with error message 504. All you have to do is restart your computer and then press CTRL-ALT-SHIFT. Have a blessed day!”

Equipped with this new AI system, the company’s customer support representatives are now basically part human, part intelligent machine. Cyborg customer reps, if you will.

Lucky for Brynjolfsson, his colleagues, and econ nerds like us at Planet Money, this software company gave the economists inside access to rigorously evaluate what happened when customer service agents were given assistance from intelligent machines. The economists examine the performance of over 5,000 agents, comparing the outcomes of old-school customer reps without AI against new, AI-enhanced cyborg customer reps.

What Happened When This Company Adopts AI

The economists’ big finding: after the software company adopted AI, the average customer support representative became, on average, 14 percent more productive. They were able to resolve more customer issues per hour. That’s huge. The company’s workforce is now much faster and more effective. They’re also, apparently, happier. Turnover has gone down, especially among new hires.

Not only that, the company’s customers are more satisfied. They give higher ratings to support staff. They also generally seem to be nicer in their conversations and are less likely to ask to speak to an agent’s supervisor.

So, yeah, AI seems to really help improve the work of the company’s employees. But what’s even more interesting is that not all employees gained equally from using AI. It turns out that the company’s more experienced, highly skilled customer support agents saw little or no benefit from using it. It was mainly the less experienced, lower-skilled customer service reps who saw big gains in their job performance.

“And what this system did was it took people with just two months of experience and had them performing at the level of people with six months of experience,” Brynjolfsson says. “So it got them up the learning curve a lot faster — and that led to very positive benefits for the company.”

Brynjolfsson says these improvements make a lot of sense when you think about how the AI system works. The system has analyzed company records and learned from highly rated conversations between agents and customers. In effect, the AI chatbot is basically mimicking the company’s top performers, who have experience on the job. And it’s pushing newbies and low performers to act more like them. The machine has essentially figured out the recipe for the magic sauce that makes top performers so good at their jobs, and it’s offering that recipe for the workers who are less good at their jobs.

That’s great news for the company and its customers, as well as the company’s low performers, who are now better at their jobs. But, Brynjolfsson says, it also raises the question: should the company’s top performers be getting paid even more? After all, they’re now not only helping the customers they directly interact with. They’re now also, indirectly, helping all the company’s customers, by modeling what good interactions look like and providing vital source material for the AI.

“It used to be that high-skilled workers would come up with a good answer and that would only help them and their customer,” Brynjolfsson says. “Now that good answer gets amplified and used by people throughout the organization.”

The Big Picture

While Brynjolfsson is cautious, noting that this is one company in one study, he also says one of his big takeaways is that AI could make our economy much more productive in the near future. And that’s important. Productivity gains — doing more in less time — are a crucial component for rising living standards. After years of being disappointed by lackluster productivity growth, Brynjolfsson is excited by this possibility. Not only does AI seem to be delivering productivity gains, it seems to deliver them pretty fast.

“And the fact that we’re getting some really significant benefits suggests that we could have some big benefits over the next few years or decades as these systems are more widely used,” Brynjolfsson says. When machines take over more work and boost our productivity, Brynjolfsson says, that’s generally a great thing. It means that society is getting richer, that the economic pie is getting larger.

At the same time, Brynjolfsson says, there are no guarantees about how this pie will be distributed. Even when the pie gets bigger, there are people who could see their slice get smaller or even disappear. “It’s very clear that it’s not automatic that the bigger pie is evenly shared by everybody,” Brynjolfsson says. “We have to put in place policies, whether it’s in tax policy or the strategy of companies like this one, which make sure the gains are more widely shared.”

Higher productivity is a really important finding. But what’s probably most fascinating about this study is that it adds to a growing body of evidence that suggests that AI could have a much different effect on the labor market than previous waves of technological change.

For the last few decades, we’ve seen a pattern that economists have called “skill-biased technological change.” The basic idea is that so-called “high-skill” office workers have disproportionately benefited from the use of computers and the internet. Things like Microsoft Word and Excel, Google, and so on have made office workers and other high-paid professionals much better at their jobs.

Meanwhile, however, so-called “low-skill” workers, who often work in the service industry, have not benefited as much from new technology. Even worse, this body of research finds, new technology killed many “middle-skill” jobs that once offered non-college-educated workers a shot at upward mobility and a comfortable living in the middle class. In this previous technological era, the jobs that were automated away were those that focused on doing repetitive, “routine” tasks. Tasks that you could provide a machine with explicit, step-by-step instructions how to do. It turned out that, even before AI, computer software was capable of doing a lot of secretarial work, data entry, bookkeeping, and other clerical tasks. And robots, meanwhile, were able to do many tasks in factories. This killed lots of middle class jobs.

The MIT economist David Autor has long studied this phenomenon. He calls it “job polarization” and a “hollowing out” of the middle class. Basically, the data suggests that the last few decades of technological change was a major contributor to increasing inequality. Technology has mostly boosted the incomes of college-educated and skilled workers while doing little for — and perhaps even hurting — the incomes of non-college-educated and low-skilled workers.

Upside Downside

But, what’s interesting is, as Brynjolfsson notes, this new wave of technological change looks like it could be pretty different. You can see it in his new study. Instead of experienced and skilled workers benefiting mostly from AI technology, it’s the opposite. It’s the less experienced and less skilled workers who benefit the most. In this customer support center, AI improved the know-how and intelligence of those who were new at the job and those who were lower performers. It suggests that AI could benefit those who were left behind in the previous technological era.

“And that might be helpful in terms of closing some of the inequality that previous technologies actually helped amplify,” Brynjolfsson says. So one benefit of intelligence machines is — maybe — they will improve the know-how and smarts of low performers, thereby reducing inequality.

But — and Brynjolfsson seemed a bit skeptical about this — it’s also possible that AI could lower the premium on being experienced, smart, or knowledgeable. If anybody off the street can now come in and — augmented by a machine — start doing work at a higher level, maybe the specialized skills and intelligence of people who were previously in the upper echelon become less valuable. So, yeah, AI could reduce inequality by bringing the bottom up. But it could also reduce inequality by bringing the top and middle down, essentially de-skilling a whole range of occupations, making them easier for anyone to do and thus lowering their wage premium.

Of course, it’s also possible that AI could end up increasing inequality even more. For one, it could make the Big AI companies, which own these powerful new systems, wildly rich. It could also empower business owners to replace more and more workers with intelligent machines. And it could kill jobs for all but the best of the best in various industries, who keep their jobs because maybe they’re superstars or because maybe they have seniority. Then, with AI, these workers could become much more productive, and so their industries might need fewer of these types of jobs than before.

The effects of AI, of course, are still very much being studied — and these systems are evolving fast — so this is all just speculation. But it does look like AI may have different effects than previous technologies, especially because machines are now more capable of doing “non-routine” tasks. Previously, as stated, it was only “routine” tasks that proved to be automatable. But, now, with AI, you don’t have to program machines with specific instructions. They are much more capable of figuring out things on the fly. And this machine intelligence could upend much of the previous thinking on which kinds of jobs will be affected by automation.

Source: This company adopted AI. Here’s what happened to its human workers

Filed under Government Tagged with , , ,

Time is right to scrap requirement to swear oath to the King, MPs and Senators say

2023/05/03 Leave a comment

Easy to agree, virtually impossible to implement and a distraction from more fundamental issues. However, the citizenship oath could be changed as former immigration minister Marchi tried to do in the 90s:

As King Charles prepares for his coronation at Westminster Abbey on Saturday, some senators and Liberal, NDP and Bloc Quebecois MPs want to abolish the federal requirement that parliamentarians pledge loyalty to the monarch. Instead, they say, office-holders should have the option of swearing an oath to Canada, or the Canadian people.

MPs and senators have to swear or affirm an oath to “be faithful and bear true allegiance” to the British monarch before taking their seats in Parliament after an election. They can’t sit if they refuse. The obligation dates back to the Constitution Act of 1867.

The oath is also taken by people with official positions across Canada, including judges, RCMP officers and members of the armed forces. New Canadians likewise pledge loyalty to the Crown at their citizenship ceremonies. The oath used to be sworn to Queen Elizabeth, until her death last year. It is now sworn to the new King.

Quebec Liberal MP Joel Lightbound said he has sworn an oath to the monarch three times since first being elected. “Having an alternative to swearing allegiance to the British Crown would have made me very happy,” he said.

“In my opinion federal elected officials should have the choice to swear or not swear allegiance to the Crown in future.”

Ontario NDP MP Charlie Angus said he was “personally astounded” when he first found out he had to swear allegiance to the British monarch as a requirement of taking his seat in Parliament. He said he imagined his late Scottish grandmother, an avowed republican, striking him with lightning for doing so.

He said it is “simply not credible” that the only obligation in the oath is to the Crown, not Canadians.

Reviewing the oath is a “very legitimate conversation” to have as the new King is crowned, he said.

Ontario NDP MP Matthew Green agreed. “An oath to an overseas monarch in perpetuity is increasingly outdated,” he said.

He added that he and many other Canadians “would be more comfortable with an oath that reflects the allegiance to the Constitution and the people of Canada.”

“While tradition is an important part of our culture and identity, from time to time it’s healthy to review these traditions and determine whether or not they still reflect our current values,” he said.

Senator Tony Dean, a former head of the Ontario Public Service, also said an oath to the monarch “seems dated” today.

“Of course the oath could be refreshed or replaced,” he said. But he noted that, because the oath is entrenched in the Constitution, changing it could require a constitutional amendment.

Michael Wernick, a former head of the federal public service and a former a senior official in constitutional affairs, said revisiting the oath with 220 parliamentary sitting days left until the next election would be “a huge waste of energy.”

“There’s more important things to focus on,” he said.

But New Brunswick Liberal MP René Arseneault, who is of Acadian heritage, said creating an alternative to the oath for MPs and senators who don’t want to swear allegiance to the Crown is “doable.”

Mr. Arseneault successfully challenged a requirement to swear an oath to the Queen when he joined the bar in New Brunswick. He was the first lawyer in the province not to do so.

“In 2023, there must be a way to modify this,” he said. “For me the best solution is a choice.”

Bloc Quebecois MPs want Parliament to follow the lead of the Quebec National Assembly, which in December unanimously passed a law scrapping the oath requirement for its elected members. Three members of the Parti Quebecois had refused to swear the oath after the October provincial election, and had been barred from sitting as a result.

Bloc House Leader Alain Therrien said Canada is “becoming more and more anti-monarchist,” in part because Canadians don’t feel the same attachment to the King as they did to the Queen. He said there should be a debate about Canada’s ties to the monarchy, including the oath.

“We are against having to swear this oath,” he said. “The monarchy is an institution that is out of date.”

Quebec Senator Julie Miville-Dechêne also questioned the need for the oath. “The time has come to at least have a choice … to swear to the monarch or to Canada,” she said.

“I would prefer to swear to the people of Canada.”

Source: Time is right to scrap requirement to swear oath to the King, MPs and Senators say

Filed under Citizenship, Government Tagged with ,

Proudfoot: The Trudeau government was supposed to be ‘open by default.’ Open at all, ever, would be a nice start

2023/04/24 Leave a comment

Hard not to agree:

In its youth, the Trudeau government was very good at branding and grand mission statements. It was a skill that was slightly hypnotizing for its novelty at the time. If the Harper government’s instinct was to turn the hose on any kids it found playing on its lawn, then the Trudeau government promised to fling open the front door and offer a rap session over a nice cool glass of lemonade.

In an open letter to Canadians on the day his first cabinet was sworn in, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau pledged to “set a higher bar for openness and transparency” in Ottawa. “Government and its information must be open by default,” he wrote. “Simply put, it is time to shine more light on government to make sure it remains focused on the people it was created to serve – you.”

You could practically hear the “Open by default” banners fluttering nobly atop the Peace Tower.

The problem with having a flair for gleaming manifestoes is that they tend to stick in the mind. And then they follow you around like a hapless tuba soundtrack, reminding everyone of what you once proudly advertised, what you now are and the distance between the two.

At this point, the Liberals’ open-by-default declarations register as cruel farce. They didn’t start the practice of iron-fisted information control in government, but they sure haven’t ended it. And they’re the ones who made that a central feature of who they would be.

There are big-picture obfuscations that deserve correspondingly large derision, like refusing to say how much public money they spent wooing Volkswagen to make car batteries in Canada (a lot, as it turns out) or the government’s obstinance on Beijing poking its fingers into Canadian life.

But it’s the smaller, daily roadblocks that are perhaps more insulting and corrosive, because they seem so unnecessary and because they send the constant message that public information is meted out on a need-to-know basis, and the public needs to know a lot less than it thinks it does.

If journalists, being annoying and nosy on behalf of citizens, have a question for a federal government department, talking to a live human being who knows things about the thing you want to know is an adorable fantasy most of the time. This will usually be conveyed by the delicate euphemism that an interview request “cannot be accommodated.” This sounds like parenting books that advise you to tell a recalcitrant toddler “It’s time to get ready for bed now” because it’s harder to argue with something decreed by the universe than with a person who tells you they’ve made a decision.

Once the absurd idea of an interview is waved off, you are asked to submit questions for response by e-mail, and to state your deadline. This is where the whole thing devolves into play acting.

If you get responses by deadline, they will generally be “answers” to what you asked only in the geographical sense that they will be located below each of your questions. They will otherwise bear, at best, a one-night-stand relationship to the original queries or to anything resembling a clear thought or fact. They will be so obviously, transparently workshopped to death by an unseen army of staffers and bureaucrats that you will practically be able to see the sweaty, nervous fingerprints still steaming on them.

But sometimes – seemingly increasingly – you will not get even an overcooked pablum of words by the stated deadline. At least one federal department now responds to deadline requests by asserting that it has “a two-day service standard,” which is as good as refusing to answer. Others have taken to blowing through a deadline, then asking that a story that has already been published be “updated” or reprinted to include their day-late-and-a-dollar-short response. (No, but that is an impressive level of chutzpah you have there.)

It’s important to note that not every department or minister’s office does this. It’s also important to acknowledge that in terms of populations whining about their working conditions, journalists rank somewhere between scary birthday clowns and subway rats on most people’s scale of who’s worth tuning up the tiny violin for.

But the real problem that underlies all of this is the concept of who owns the information. It’s not the government’s to hoard, or for bureaucratic bouncers to jealously guard. It doesn’t even belong to the journalists asking a bunch of rude questions. The information is owned by the Canadian public, and owed to them as the ones who foot the bill and who will conduct the job interview next time there’s an election call.

That’s the principled argument, but if that’s too sanctimonious for you, there’s a much more mercenary one to be made for the government explaining itself on the regular: it’s self-defeatingly dumb not to.

The logic of withholding public information might be risk aversion or issues management or the peevish certainty that everything is torqued to death and no one gives a fair benefit of the doubt. None of those problems is improved by a refusal to explain yourself, and pretty much all of them are exacerbated by refusing to do so.

When you write an exam, sometimes you arrive at the wrong answer to the big question at the end of the paper. But everyone knows you only get partial credit for trying if you show your work.

Source: The Trudeau government was supposed to be ‘open by default.’ Open at all, ever, would be a nice start

Filed under Government Tagged with ,

← Older posts

Newer posts →