ICYMI: So how are those ‘sunny ways’ working out so far? Flumian

Maryantonett Flumian, president of the Institute on Governance and one of my former deputies, on the new government’s steps to dates and some of the deeper challenges.

Hard to argue with her formulation of one of her broader questions:

As it contemplates new engagement strategies, the government confronts a broader question — how governance needs to evolve in the digital age, when ubiquitous information and the instantaneous ability to collect it have challenged the position of many traditional intermediaries, governments included. Governments have already ventured into the twitterverse, with mixed results.

But for the most part it has yet to confront a host of issues. For example, what are the benefits and risks of massive “virtual” engagement in policy making? What are the best techniques? What happens to so-called ‘message control’? What frameworks might guide interaction between the public service, citizens and the media?

The governance challenges of the digital age don’t stop there. In an age of near-frictionless connectivity, why do citizens have to deal with multiple government silos to address various aspects of the same issue — whether it’s a disability, a business start-up, or becoming a senior? And given the ever-expanding applications for data, why do governments continue to sit on vast stores of information they can’t begin to fully use in the name of “confidentiality”?

Here again, the government is off to an encouraging start. In his (no longer secret!) mandate letters to ministers, the prime minister charged several of his colleagues with working toward single-window service. The government also has committed to a policy of open data by default. Some traditionalists have cautioned that it may come to regret such a commitment, but among other considerations, it’s far from clear that a generation accustomed to the digital sharing of information is invested in the information-hoarding ethic of an earlier age.

So how are those ‘sunny ways’ working out so far?

2016 census drops income and benefits over faulty data given data to come from CRA

Good change and use of existing and more accurate data:

When Canadians receive their census questionnaires this May, they’ll no longer be asked to report their income and benefits — something Statistics Canada says produced subpar data.

“To substantially reduce the burden on Canadians, and improve the quality of income data compared to previous censuses, Statistics Canada will use income and benefits data from the Canada Revenue Agency for all census respondents to replace questions previously asked on the 2011 National Household Survey questionnaire,” a recently-published order-in-council explained.

Aside from the return of the mandatory component of the long-form census, which Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development Navdeep Bains announced the day after being sworn in last November, the 2016 Census of Population will essentially mirror the 2011 National Household Survey.

“There are no new questions on the short or long form. To ensure comparability over time, with the exception of two changes, questions asked by the Census of Population will remain the same as they were in 2011,” a Statistics Canada agency spokesperson told iPolitics.

“First, the question on religion will not be included as the census program has asked this question only every 10 years since 1871. Second, in order to reduce the time required and make it easier for Canadians to respond, income questions will be replaced with more precise tax and benefit data that have been available to Statistics Canada since 1985.”

The latter change is welcomed by Philip Cross, formerly the chief economic analyst at the agency.

When asked about it, Cross referred to a paper he wrote with Munir Sheikh — the head of Statistics Canada who resigned in the wake of the Harper government’s decision end the long-form census in 2010.

That paper, published by the University of Calgary school of public policy last March, attempted to assess the extent of the middle class plight dominating the Canadian political discourse.

And one problem it highlighted was the “disquieting” difference between what people reported as income when surveyed, as in the census, and the tax data reported by the Canada Revenue Agency.

In a nutshell, Canadians were underestimating their income.

“One reason households routinely underestimate their income in surveys is they respond as if only wages and salaries are income, ignoring the growing importance of supplementary benefits such as employer contributions to pensions or health care that are included in taxable benefits,” Cross and Sheikh wrote.

Supplementary income, they added, had risen to over 13 per cent of all labour income.

“Most of these benefits accrue to middle-income earners, something that should be taken account of when examining how their real income has fared in survey data. As well, surveys exclude irregular sources of income, such as bonuses or stock options,” they wrote.

“Income tax data are less timely but more complete.”

Will miss the religion question but it has always been on a 10-year cycle.

You needn’t talk money anymore

Women remain a distinct minority in House: Nancy Peckford

Nancy Peckford of Equal Voice on the challenges of gender parity, particularly with respect to committee chairs (we will have the full analysis of committee leadership diversity once all have chairs and vice-chairs have been selected the week of February 15 – currently only half have done so but enough to demonstrate the trend highlighted below):

This said, the excitement about a gender-balanced federal Cabinet has worn off some as we come to terms with the fact that women remain a distinct minority in the House. Many have expressed their dismay at the fact that there are so few women on the 28 House and joint House/Senate committees in Parliament. Some have questioned the government’s commitment to leveraging the talents of the women.

Clearly, few have done the math. While it may seems egregious, the reality is that with women comprising just 26 per cent of the House of Commons, parity on committees is nearly impossible. There are only 88 women in the House (versus 250 men). 50 of those belong to the Liberal caucus—more than half of whom are serving as Cabinet ministers or parliamentary secretaries, thereby precluding their capacity to sit on committees. The remaining Liberal women MPs are fewer than the current number of committees established. The opposition caucuses have, among them, just 38 women MPs and a limited number of seats on each committee. Ensuring there are more women serving as committee members can only happen if there are far more women elected to the House. It’s an obvious point but one that seems lost on many commentators.

This is why Equal Voice is so keen to encourage and equip thousands of more women to seek election—at all levels of government. And it’s precisely why we are preparing to do this work soon. It may seem premature, but the reality is that we will need hundreds of more women across parties to position, to seek, and secure federal nominations in the coming years if we are to achieve anything close to parity in the House of Commons, not just Cabinet. Only the NDP broke 40 per cent female candidates in the past election. As we celebrate an historic 100 years since (some) women in Canada attained the right to vote, achieving equal numbers of women and men on the ballot within the decade should be the ultimate goal.

Source: Women remain a distinct minority in House | hilltimes.com

New system to release census data faces uncertain future over delays

An admirable effort to make the Census easier to sort through runs into technical problems:

An $18-million project to make it easier to sort through reams of data from the coming census has been beset by delays and uncertainty that the three-year project will be done on time.

Called the “new dissemination model,” the project is designed to make it easier for visitors to the Statistics Canada website to organize, read and play with the data statistical agency collects, be it census or jobs data, or anything else the agency measures.

The end idea is to create a more interactive experience online instead of pages of static data tables, and also to simplify and standardize how information is presented.

It was all supposed to be ready in time for February 2017 when Statistics Canada releases its findings from this year’s census.

Statistics Canada and Shared Services Canada, the government’s central information-technology department that is building the new system, said the project has been delayed, but couldn’t say by how long or if it could still be completed on time.

Shared Services Canada said it has faced “a number of challenges” hosting the new system in its data centres that it is trying to address.

Internal government documents show there was a “final go/no-go” test on the system in December 2015. Statistics Canada hasn’t made a decision on the project following the test, the details of which neither agency would disclose, and is “currently analyzing the impact of the delay” to see what the next step will be.

The project is a microcosm of the problems auditor general Michael Ferguson raised last Tuesday in a critical review of Shared Services Canada. That audit found, among other things, that Shared Services Canada didn’t always communicate well with the departments and agencies it serves, leaving some of them in the dark about projects, and confusion over who was responsible for what.

As this will likely be more for general users, expect that I will continue to use the Beyond 2020 specialized software rather than this tool once (or if) it becomes available. My only wish is for Beyond 2020 to have a Mac version rather than having to run Windows.

I have been invited to a Stats Canada usability testing session this week which will give me a better sense of the planned approach.

Source: New system to release census data faces uncertain future over delays

Open government push requires ‘cultural shift’ in public service, federal documents warn

Sound analysis of the challenge:

The Liberals’ promise to pry open government requires nothing less than “cultural change” within the public service, warn documents obtained by the Star.

Treasury Board President Scott Brison was told in November that there are significant hurdles to the Liberals’ campaign pledge to reform access to information laws, make government information open by default, and more effectively communicate with the public.

Documents prepared for Brison describe a federal culture of “limited disclosure, insular policy making,” which takes into account the “federal view only.”

To implement the Liberals’ ambitious democratic reform agenda, that culture will need to shift to one of “proactive release, engagement and connectivity, (and) broad leadership on open government.”

It’s not clear exactly how the government intends to change the culture of some 257,000 employees in the core public service. But Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has already made clear he wants to end the era of the federal government deciding and acting on issues unilaterally, putting an emphasis on meeting with provincial premiers and, on Friday, the mayors of Canada’s largest cities.

“The government holds a largely untapped wealth of mostly unclassified information of interest to Canadians,” read the documents, obtained under access to information laws. “This information is not sufficiently leveraged to fuel the digital economy, spur innovation, and give Canadian business a competitive edge.”

Trudeau made openness and accountability a key plank in his party’s election platform. The idea is to make government information “open by default,” unlike the current system where citizens need to resort to access to information requests that can take months or even years to process.

But releasing more information about government operations, the documents warn, carries with it the risk of public relations headaches for the new government.

In an interview Tuesday, Brison acknowledged that risk.

“(But) you can’t expect Canadians to trust us if we can’t trust them,” Brison said.

“The other thing to keep in mind is we will make better decisions when we engage Canadians in the decision-making process. The old days where governments would be covetous and secretive (with) information to try and make a decision because government thought they were smarter than citizens, are over.”

When it comes to changing the public services culture, Brison suggested the Liberals need to lead by example – and the leadership starts with the prime minister.

“(Trudeau) is absolutely committed to this throughout government,” Brison said.

“For most Canadians, the transparency bus has left the station. You try to explain to a millennial why a lot of this information isn’t rendered public, and you lose them.”

But it’s not just the culture of secrecy and risk aversion preventing information from getting to Canadians. The documents note Canada’s dated privacy and access to information acts are falling out of sync with technological development.

The Access to Information Act, for instance, has not been substantially changed since the early 1980s when most government business was conducted on paper.

Source: Open government push requires ‘cultural shift’ in public service, federal documents warn | Toronto Star

Ottawa falling short in assessing gender impact of policy decisions

Provides material for reflection given Minister Hajdu’s mandate letter commitment:

Work with the Privy Council Office to ensure that a gender-based analysis is applied to proposals before they arrive at Cabinet for decision-making.

Ideally, of course, this would be expanded to a broader widespread diversity lens, as I have argued in my deck, Multiculturalism – Implementing Diversity and Inclusion (example slide below):

Multiculturalism - Implementing Diversity and Inclusion.001

Two decades after pledging to assess the gender impact of federal government policies, Ottawa is still falling short in its efforts, meaning that obstacles to both men and women still stand, auditor general Michael Ferguson says.

In an audit report released Tuesday, Ferguson reported some progress on the file but cautioned that Ottawa’s commitment to assess the gender impact of its policy decisions was still haphazard.

“We observed that gender-based analysis is still not fully deployed across the federal government 20 years after the government committed to applying this type of analysis to its policy decisions,” Ferguson said.

He noted that while Status of Women Canada, Treasury Board and Privy Council Office have made progress in this area, the gender analyses done by departments and agencies were “not always complete, nor of consistent quality.”

“This means gender considerations, including obstacles to the full participation of diverse groups of men and women, are not always considered in government decisions,” he said.

New Democrat MP David Christopherson said the audit findings are evidence the federal government is not taking the issue seriously.

“Imagine, 20 years later and there (are) still six departments that don’t even have a framework for recording the information, let alone doing something about it. We’re a long, long way from where we need to be,” he told reporters.

At a 1995 United Nations conference on women, Ottawa committed to analyze the “gender-specific” impacts on women and men before making decisions on policies, legislation and programs across government.

Those considerations should include assessing the differences between men and women, which could include age, education, language, geography, culture and income.

Such analysis is meant to flag whether an initiative could have unintended impacts, or perhaps treats men and women differently.

Ferguson’s audit team examined 16 initiatives undertaken by four departments: Employment and Social Development; Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development; Industry Canada; and Natural Resources.

The audit found that the departments performed gender-based analyses for all initiatives but did not always complete them. For example, in one case, analysis of a funding program for skills training did not flag the under-representation of women in the information, communications and technology field.

In another case, the review of an apprentice loan program did not examine barriers to access training and trades for women, visible minorities and immigrant women, the audit found.

Ferguson’s report flagged a number of systemic barriers to gender-based analysis, starting with the fact that such assessments are not mandatory. As well, he noted the tight deadlines for developing policy initiatives and limited ability of some departments and agencies for doing this work.

And the report found that Status of Women Canada was unable to track whether gender-based analysis was being considered in the decision-making across government.

Ferguson’s report urges the Privy Council Office, Status of Women and Treasury Board to “take concrete actions to identify and address barriers that prevent systematic conduct of rigorous gender-based analysis.”

Still, the audit report did find progress in implementing gender-based analysis compared to 2009, the last time the auditor general’s office reviewed the issue.

Patricia Hajdu, the minister of status of women, said she agreed with the audit findings that while progress had been made, “more needs to be done.”

“Our government has been clear about its commitment to consider the gender impacts of our decisions. We will use the auditor general’s report as a renewed call for action within the federal government,” she said Tuesday.

Still, Hajdu said that the government is not considering make gender-based analysis mandatory.

Source: Ottawa falling short in assessing gender impact of policy decisions | Toronto Star

OAG Full Report

The curious career of the ‘taxpayer’ in Canadian public life: Delacourt

Good piece by Susan Delacourt on the use of the word ‘taxpayers’ vs ‘citizens’ (I prefer the latter):

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is not fond of the word ‘taxpayers’ as a synonym for Canadian citizens.

“Unless you say ‘service-receivers’ at the same time as you say ‘taxpayers,’ you’re only giving half the equation,” Trudeau said in an interview with me last week. “The idea of ‘citizen’ involves both benefits and responsibilities, and I like that a bit better.”

I can’t say I’d be unhappy to see a little less casual use of that word ‘taxpayer’ in politics. Bob Rae, the former interim Liberal leader, would occasionally ‘correct’ reporters in scrums when they asked how some policy would affect taxpayers. “You mean citizens,” Rae would say.

The idea of citizenship as a two-way relationship with government seems to have fallen out of fashion in recent decades. Whether it can be revived is an interesting question.

Seeing citizenship as a send-and-receive equation, for instance, also gives us another way to look at Trudeau’s conversations with 10 Canadians on CBC TV the other night.

While all the attention was on what Trudeau had learned from the questioners, I kept wondering how much the questioners themselves were learning about government. Did they come away with their views changed on what we require of political leadership?

CBC did a good job of choosing people with tough questions; not one of them was able to walk away from the Trudeau encounter with easy answers. The prime minister has taken a bit of flak in some quarters for offering too little in the way of comfort or solutions, but that’s an occupational hazard in modern politics. If the answers were easy or quick, wouldn’t someone have offered some by now?

One thing is certain — none of those people came to the Prime Minister’s Office simply asking for their “taxpayers’” money back.

There are all kinds of good reasons to keep reminding politicians that the money they’re spending is public money — a better term, it seems, than “taxpayers’ money”. And the Canadian Taxpayers Federation has served as a useful check on reckless spending over the years.

But taxing and spending are not the sum total of running a country, despite how that rather limited view has been hammered into popular political culture over the years. If they were, those ten citizens who met Trudeau the other night could have been sent away with a nice cheque as a parting gift.

Susan Delacourt takes us on an etymological tour of the word “taxpayer”

Marni Soupcoff: Reviving the court challenges program is the wrong way to address a real problem

Soupcoff’s overall point about the excessive costs of going to court and the more fundamental need to address these is valid.

However,  the complexity of reducing costs and the time required to do so, makes restoration of the court challenges program a sensible interim step (disclosure, I used to have the team that managed the program under my branch at Canadian Heritage and it was small and low-cost):

Only if we address the outlandish costs — in both time and money — of suing government will we actually approach a reality of constitutional litigation being a meaningful check on government power and a meaningful protector of Canadians’ rights. The details of who pays those costs are far easier to sort out.

The fact that challenging a law should not be as painless as, say, buying a sandwich, is worth mentioning. Only, we’ve ended up at such an extreme in the opposite direction, with a typical constitutional challenge quite easily requiring several millions of dollars and a good decade of time, that worries about opening the floodgates seem best left for later, once we’ve made battling for constitutional justice slightly more accessible than walking on the moon.

While it might be true that reducing the price tag of a constitutional case by even $50,000 or so (the amount at which the Court Challenges Program used to max out per matter) would help citizens hold government to account, reducing government delay, document dumping, and excessive procedural manoeuvring during constitutional litigation would be even more productive. Assuming that most Canadians who challenge a law are also federal taxpayers who’d be paying for both a Court Challenges Program and the legions of crown lawyers and other government employees defending the status quo, the plaintiffs would be getting a better deal with a streamlined judicial and litigation process than with a challenges program.

Achieving access to justice is complex, but cutting, rather than adding, bureaucracy is usually a dependably positive step.

Source: Marni Soupcoff: Reviving the court challenges program is the wrong way to address a real problem | National Post

Canadians ask Trudeau the tough questions – and some answers don’t come easy

Greater transparency and honesty in responses than we have come to expect:

But if this government is about openness and transparency it must continue to demonstrate that by taking risks like this one. And that sometimes means being confronted by the harsh reality that answers aren’t always possible and that solutions to problems will be difficult and sometimes take an awfully long time.

The prime minister sat face to face with a woman named Nikki, who wanted assurances her indigenous daughter would be safe growing up and that her life was valued. She was emotional. Trudeau spoke bluntly: “Indigenous lives matter. That you even have to say that is, you know, frustrating to me. And then you demonstrate it.”

It’s the demonstrating part that Trudeau acknowledged will be the most challenging. Some of what his government has promised for indigenous peoples, he said, will take “years and even decades.”

That is not surprising, but it is risky to admit this truth so publicly — that “real change” on many issues likely won’t happen as quickly as most people would like or even need.

Some change must happen more immediately for strict economic reasons.

At least, that’s what Danny, the oilsands worker from Alberta, demonstrated. He wanted to know the government’s plan to save the oil fields and keep everyone working.

There again, the prime minister admitted not everyone would still have a job at the end of the day — or, at least, not a particularly high-paying one.

Danny asked Trudeau what he should do and the prime minister told him to keep working hard. And he hinted later that measures will be in the budget to help people like Danny and other regions struggling with the low price of oil.

By the end of the exercise, a town hall with a twist, Trudeau seemed to have won over many of the chosen Canadians, who he admitted had been “tough” and “challenging” with him.

He shook their hands, and you could hear them off mic thanking him and wishing him luck.

It is a large part of this government’s gamble: not just the openness, but the listening. The bet that by hearing people out, you can also convince them to come along with you, or stick with you, or have faith in you.

But as Jenna, the first to get 10 minutes with Trudeau, told him so honestly, “Forgive me if we’re a little bit skeptical …”

Source: Canadians ask Trudeau the tough questions – and some answers don’t come easy – Politics – CBC News

And of particular interest:

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau says a change in culture is needed within Canadian police forces to ensure indigenous people are treated the same as everyone else.

Trudeau told a CBC forum Sunday night that a “pervasive culture” in police forces, governments and religious communities has led to indigenous people being less valued.

He said that culture must be changed and he predicted the push for change will come from the Canadian people.

Quebec cabinet shuffle reflects momentum from Trudeau’s gender parity commitment: Hébert

Chantal Hébert gets it right on gender parity in her comments on Quebec Premier Couillard’s recent cabinet shuffle:

But before concluding that this only proves that merit is a casualty of gender politics, ask yourself the following question: if one has to run out of competent male candidates before filling senior posts with equally or more talented women, is it any wonder that gender parity has been so elusive in Canada?

Source: Quebec cabinet shuffle reflects momentum from Trudeau’s gender parity commitment: Hébert | Toronto Star