Boundary between politics, public service is ‘no man’s land’: Savoie

More on the inappropriate use by Employment Minister Poilievre use of government video services for partisan purposes (taking a lead from the PM’s 24/7 videos).

Should there be a change in government, there will likely be questions regarding whether or not deputies and senior officials provided any advice on the ethics of such advertising, particularly in the pre-writ period. There is also a risk that an incoming government may choose to emulate this approach rather than limiting it.

While Savoie is right that not all responsibility should fall on the shoulders of the Clerk and that all executives have a role in questioning such practices, the Clerk and deputies need to set the tone and provide space for other executives to challenge such requests:

Employment Minister Pierre Poilievre’s taxpayer-funded video to promote the Conservatives’ universal childcare benefit shows the traditional line between politics and the public service is a “no man’s land” where there are no rules, says a leading public administration expert.

Donald Savoie, a Canada Research Chair in Public Administration and Governance at Université de Moncton, said the online video “smacked” of partisanship to which public servants should have been “hyper-sensitive” coming only four months before a federal election.

“If anyone should know and be sensitive to the partisan line that should not be crossed, it’s the public service,” said Savoie. “They should not get involved in initiatives or measures that can viewed by Canadians, or opposition politicians, as partisan. They are guardians of the public interest, not the political interest.”

But Savoie said the rules and boundaries that once separated politicians and bureaucrats, and the workings of politics and administration have been “thrown out the window” — setting the stage for a creeping politicization of the public service.

There are still rules like those laid down in the communication policy and values-and-ethics code that are supposed to ensure that public servants don’t stray into partisan territory. And the department argued that it followed government policies in making the video.

But Savoie argues codes and policies don’t fill the void of rules that guided the traditional bargain between Canada’s non-partisan public servants and politicians. As a result, public servants don’t know what their roles are anymore in policy-making, operations or communications.

“No values and ethics code can paper over this no man’s land. The minister should have basic respect for public service, and senior public servants should have it too. It takes two to have a bargain. That old bargain is gone and we are searching for a new one,” said Savoie.

“So what’s the role of the public service in contemporary government? We haven’t defined the new rules. All we have are values and ethics and they have no teeth. We absolutely need a frank and open discussion on the role of the public service in policy making, operations and communications.”

Academics have for years warned that the traditional role of the public service was radically shifting as power gathered at the centre in the Prime Minister’s Office and its bureaucratic arm, the Privy Council Office.

That shift has accelerated by rapidly changing technology, the 24-hour news cycle, and governments obsessed with managing the message.

But critics argue that nothing has strained the neutrality of public servants like the Conservatives’ highly centralized and partisan approach to government communications.

Liberal MP David McGuinty argued that Privy Council Clerk Janice Charette, who heads the public service, should justify how public servants could work on what he called Poilievre’s “taxpayer-funded vanity video.”

The video was produced by department funds, and public servants were called in on a Sunday to work on it, including filming Poilievre glad-handing constituents.

But Savoie questions why the clerk should be on the hook when every public servant has been immersed in the values-and-ethics code.

“Don’t point the finger at the clerk,” said Savoie. “If you are an EX-1 or above you should know the importance of the value-and-ethics code and when you see a red flag like this a few months before a general election, live by it. You should be asking if this is appropriate. Values and ethics code covers everybody, not just the clerk.”

But Savoie said Poilievre, as a minister, should have known better.

“Ministers have a responsibility to back off and respect the line and realize what’s in the public interest and what’s in their own interest. It’s not all on the shoulder of the public service — the ministers shouldn’t be making inappropriate demands.”

Boundary between politics, public service is ‘no man’s land’: Expert | Ottawa Citizen.

Critics say Fraser Institute letter highlights ‘enormous lack of clarity’ in charity-audit rules | Toronto Star

How the Fraser Institute can maintain this kind of letter by former Ontario Premier Harris is non-partisan defies credibility and common sense:

A fundraising letter written by Fraser Institute senior fellow and former premier Mike Harris criticizing the Ontario government highlights a double standard in the way the Canada Revenue Agency audits charities, critics charge.

The letter takes swipes at the province for lacking a “credible plan” to balance the provincial budget within two years, and goes on to criticize Ontario’s debt and the province’s unemployment rate.

“As my fellow Ontarian you must be outraged — that is why I am writing to you today to help us educate Ontarians about the severity of Ontario’s problems and the potential solutions,” Harris writes.

The letter asks the reader to “join in the pursuit of policies that will re-establish Ontario as the envy of Canada” by financially supporting the Fraser Institute’s new research program.

Ontario Premier Kathleen Wynne and her Liberal government aren’t mentioned in the letter, a copy of which was obtained by the Star.

The letter is drawing criticism because while charities are permitted to engage in political activities as long as they don’t spend more than 10 per cent of their funds doing so, the Fraser Institute claims the Harris letter isn’t political, and that the group doesn’t engage in any political activities.

Critics argue the letter cuts to the heart of the problem they see in the way the Canada Revenue Agency audits charities.

“This is a great example of the enormous lack of clarity in the rules governing charities and inconsistency in the application by the CRA of those rules,” says NDP MP Murray Rankin, his party’s Canada Revenue critic.

“I just want a level playing field where other charities that may not be aligned with the Conservative government are subject to the same rules,” he said, adding the CRA’s rules are “all over the place.’’

Since Jan. 1, 2012, the CRA’s Charities Directorate has completed roughly 2,000 audits of charities through its regular audit program, and identified more than 50 charities for “political activities” audits.

The government budgets $13 million a year for these political “super audits,” as some people refer to them.

Critics charge that charities espousing views that run counter to Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s Conservative government — including some environmental groups — have been unfairly and disproportionately targeted for the political activity audits.

Charities that have been subjected to these audits say having to pull together the paperwork for the inspections is a daunting process. Several groups have voiced concerns the audits are intended to silence them.

The president of the Fraser Institute, a right-leaning think-tank and registered charity, says “in no way” is the Harris letter political.

“It’s written by a long time senior fellow of the Fraser Institute, Mike Harris. All of the data in the letter is based on Fraser Institute research,” says president Niels Veldhuis, who adds that his organization is non-partisan.

Veldhuis says his organization has been audited by the CRA three times — the last time being in the late 1990s.

Groups that have been audited since 2012, however, say it’s a stretch to say there’s nothing political about Harris’ fundraising letter.

“We would not have it signed by an ex-politician especially with that level of profile as a Conservative politician,” says Bruce Campbell, executive director of the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, a non-partisan research body devoted to social, economic and environmental justice issues.

In order to address the critics, the Government needs to be more transparent on the criteria used and needs a few high profile examples of right-leaning organizations that are being audited.

Given the last time the Fraser Institute was audited was in the late 1990s, perhaps it could volunteer for an audit?

Critics say Fraser Institute letter highlights ‘enormous lack of clarity’ in charity-audit rules | Toronto Star.

ATIP: “Effectively they are censoring that part of the past:” Michel Drapeau

Not acceptable. A Government that has strongly supported the Monument for Victims of Communism, where secrecy was the norm and rewriting the past common practice, is essentially behaving in a similar fashion.

Does their paranoia know no ends?

Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s government is setting a dangerous precedent by retroactively exempting all long gun registry data from Canada’s access to information and privacy acts, say some of the country’s foremost experts on access to information.

Michel Drapeau, who quite literally wrote the book on Canada’s access law, said the provision buried in the government’s budget implementation bill is “undemocratic,” “high handed” and marks the first time to his knowledge that a Canadian government has tried to make an exemption to the access laws retroactive.

“I think it’s wrong, it’s very, very wrong,” Drapeau said. “There is a concept in law that laws, normally, that’s 99.999 per cent, never have any retroactive action. The past is the past.”

The precedent the government is setting by making the exemption to the access to information act retroactive could be used to eliminate all trace of other files, Drapeau said.

“There’s no limit – anything they want. I guess they could pass a law on whatever activities that this particular government might have done or may have been involved in. It could be the Libyan mission or the ISIL mission.”

“This information doesn’t belong to this government – it belongs to us people.”

The problem, Drapeau points out, is the purpose of the access to information law is to allow citizens and researchers to search past government documents.

“We shouldn’t go out and purge records because we changed our mind or we don’t believe in what it is. I find that wrong and I find it is like robbing part of our collective and national memory and to what purpose.”

“It’s definitely a bad precedent and an example of excessive government secrecy and it’s a very dangerous step backwards.”

“Effectively what they’ve done is they are censoring that part of the past,” he added.

ATIP: “Effectively they are censoring that part of the past:” Michel Drapeau

Canadian research study hits snag over lousy population data – The Globe and Mail

Good piece on some of the limitations of the National Household Survey, particularly at the Census Tract level.

Nice comment on the irony between more corporate big data, with all the related privacy implications, and less effective government big data (although linking the NHS to CRA income information will improve quality and is appropriate use of big data):

The project, produced with the financial backing of the Maytree Foundation, used 2010 to 2013 data from the Canadian Community Health Survey, a voluntary annual survey with a sample size of 65,000. The project didn’t use the last voluntary national household survey due to difficulties in comparability and in assessing data quality for smaller communities.

The researchers want to see the mandatory long-form census not only reinstated, but expanded to include more questions on wealth and health. They recommend more sharing of information between federal government departments and more tools, such as online searchable databases, to make data more accessible and useable.

The irony is that the lack of data on the public side comes as Big Data is giving private firms unprecedented access to rich details about customers’ lives.

“The trend in the private sector, for companies like Google and Uber, they’re making brilliant decisions, strategically, because they’re collecting more and more information, mining it and refining their services and products,” said Mr. Johal.

“And what we’re seeing in Canada is governments stepping away actively from getting that information – so that makes it really hard for us to make those smart decisions and invest in our future.”

Canadian research study hits snag over lousy population data – The Globe and Mail.

Top federal bureaucrat targets hiring, policymaking and mental health in her first report

Twenty-Second_Annual_Report_-_Report_-_Clerk_of_the_Privy_CouncilClerk Janice Charette on her three priorities for the public service in her first report to the Prime Minister on the public service:

In her report, Charette said she is “unequivocally and personally” committed to the Blueprint 2020 vision, unveiled by her predecessor, Wayne Wouters, as the road map for the public service in the digital age.

The public service is in the throes of a major transition and Blueprint has a strong appeal to young, tech-savvy public servants, as it is built around new technology and cutting red tape. It’s aimed at making the public service more networked, innovative, efficient, productive, better managed and tech-enabled.

A big complaint about it, however, is that it dodges some of the politically sensitive issues dogging Canada’s largest employer. These include: the lack of trust between bureaucrats and their political bosses; the public service’s diminished policymaking role and relevance; and what many call a “toxic” workplace that has one of the highest incidences of mental health claims in the country.

Charette’s three priorities could go a long way to address those perceived gaps.

The public service has faced an exodus of retiring baby boomers whom Charette said have to be replaced with recruits who bring new skills and fresh ideas to “manage in the modern world” dominated by technology and big data.

Charette said she isn’t setting hiring targets at this point, but departments must keep their human resource plans updated so they know which skills are needed for the future. With downsizing, departments have been preoccupied with shedding jobs.

The number of people leaving or retiring from the public service had been relatively stable over the years, until the 2012 budget cuts kicked in. Nearly 13,000 public servants retired or left in 2013-14, followed by another 12,283 the following year.

Charette said she isn’t looking to “grow” the public service, but new hiring hasn’t come close to replacing the record number of departures. About 4,300 permanent employees were hired last year and about 2,870 the year before. Rather than recruiting, departments are filling gaps with casual, term and student employees.

The recruitment and retention patterns are reflected in the experience levels of public servants. Today, 13 per cent of public servants have less than four years of experience compared to more than 17 per cent the previous year. The proportion with between five and 14 years’ experience, however, increased from 45 per cent to nearly 49 per cent.

The prime minister’s advisory committee on the public service sounded the alarm in a report last month, warning that departments averse to hiring could cause a “demographic hole” similar to the missing generation that dogged the public service for years when it stopped hiring in the 1990s. The report called for “top-down direction” from the clerk and deputy ministers.

“I think it is important for me to send a signal about where I see the priorities,” Charette told the Citizen. “Departments are making their own decisions right now about their HR priorities and I think it is important for me to signal that when I look at the public service as a whole, that this is one area where I think we have a public service-wide need.”

Here’s a quick look at what Charette said.

Recruitment:

Specialists in data analysis will be a key recruitment target.

The public service should also examine how it recruits. It typically relies on a major post-secondary campaign on campuses, as well as online recruitment  The public service also needs an infusion of mid-career and senior talent from the private sector.

Policy development:

The public service is no longer the only or even the primary source of policy advice for ministers. Politicians expect public servants to consult and collaborate with stakeholders and it’s up to public servants to quickly “synthesize” the various interests to come with advice in the public interest.

Public servants also have to strengthen the links between policy and service delivery.

“Who is responsible for integrating that information, synthesizing it and trying to weed through what is in the public interest as opposed to the interests of the person who may be advocating a position is the job of the public service. (That’s) evidence-based public policy,” she said.

Mental health:

Charette has “no tolerance” for the situation in which one in five public servants complained about harassment in the last public service survey.

She also worries about the rising incidence of mental health claims that approach half of all long-term disability claims. Public servants’ reliance on medications to combat mental illness is also on the rise.

Some good use of infographics to communicate range of activities and related data in contrast to the previous text-driven reports as well as tables on employment equity (still using the dated 2006 labour market availability, however, which paints an overly rosy view).

Top federal bureaucrat targets hiring, policymaking and mental health in her first report | Ottawa Citizen.

Auditor General: Billions in tax breaks given without proper oversight

I always remember the smugness and sometimes even arrogance of Finance officials in their criticism of MCs, TB submissions and other issues in pointing out weaknesses. The issue was not so much pointing out weaknesses (that is their role) but rather the tone and manner in making their points (TBS shared this trait).

So it is with some satisfaction to see Finance on the receiving end, recognizing that some of this reflects political, not official decisions.

Finance Canada is failing to properly manage billions of dollars in tax credits it offers to Canadians and, in many cases, does not know if they are relevant, effective or achieving the government’s goals, says the federal auditor general.

The Finance Department also does not provide adequate information to parliamentarians on the tens of billions of dollars in so-called tax-based expenditures, Auditor General Michael Ferguson says in a stinging report released Tuesday.

Among his criticisms – which, coincidentally, come at the height of the tax season and just a week after a federal budget touting tax relief – is the government’s failure to include the projected future cost of its many tax breaks.

Opposition parties, spending watchdogs and many economists have for years criticized some of the “boutique” tax credits offered up by the Conservative government, and have instead called for more broad-based tax relief rather than the targeted measures they say are being used to buy votes.

… In its audit, Ferguson’s office examined the relevance, efficiency, effectiveness, equity, implementation costs and how frequently the credits were evaluated, among other factors.

The auditor general found examples of where Finance Canada identified issues with certain tax credits before implementing them, but – despite those potential problems – has yet to evaluate the tax measures.

“Overall, we concluded that the department fell short on managing tax-based expenditures. We reached this conclusion because these expenditures were not systematically evaluated and the information reported did not adequately support parliamentary oversight,” Ferguson says in his report.

The auditor general made three recommendations to Finance Canada, which have been accepted by the government.

They include conducting “systematic and ongoing” evaluations that assess a tax measure’s relevance and appropriateness, determining whether the tax system is the most effective way to meet the desired policy objective, and establishing whether to retain, abolish or modify certain tax credits.

Ferguson also recommended the government improve its reporting practices on the billions of dollars in tax credits, including providing projected cost estimates in future years, and more timely and relevant information for parliamentarians.

Auditor General: Billions in tax breaks given without proper oversight | Ottawa Citizen.

First Nations chemo case ruling amended to include child’s well-being

A welcome development:

The clarification of a controversial court ruling that allowed the mother of an 11-year-old First Nations girl to pull her out of chemotherapy says the best interests of the child are “paramount,” but traditional medicine must be respected.

It is a “significant qualification” of Ontario court Judge Gethin Edward’s November 2014 ruling, according to one legal expert, which means the child’s well-being has to be balanced against rights to traditional medicine.

Nick Bala, a law professor at Queen’s University, says the clarification “walks back” the original ruling that put First Nations constitutional rights as the major factor to be considered in the care of the child.

The clarification, read in a Brantford, Ont. court Friday afternoon, comes with news the child restarted chemotherapy in March when the cancer returned after a period of remission.

The family’s lawyer, Paul Williams, said the clarification prevents the previous ruling regarding aboriginal rights as being interpreted as an ‘absolute.’ The child’s best interests must also be considered. (Jeff Green/CBC)

The joint submission from the auditor general of Ontario, as well as counsel for the Six Nations, the child’s family and McMaster Children’s Hospital, was celebrated as a collaborative conversation rather than a confrontation among the parties involved.

First Nations chemo case ruling amended to include child’s well-being – Latest Hamilton news – CBC Hamilton.

Bill Blair wants to run for Liberals in fall election

Quite a coup, and interesting the public reasons for Blair choosing the Liberals over the Conservatives.

So while the Conservatives have Julian Fantino (also a former Toronto police chief) of veteran abuse fame , the Liberals have Bill Blair who, while not without controversies, talks the language of inclusion. Advantage Liberal:

The recruitment of Blair is a coup for Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau and a boost for the Liberals in Toronto and across the country, given the profile of the former police chief, a senior party official told the Star.

“He’s an excellent community leader. He’s got a depth of experience I don’t think you would find anywhere else in the country,” said the official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity.

“We’re thrilled,” the official said.

In going with the Liberals, Blair rejected strong arm-twisting by the Conservatives to run with them, including personal overtures by senior cabinet ministers, a source said. Blair declined to comment, saying only that he had “respectful discussions” with a “number of people.”

“I was asked to consider a number of different options for the future,” he said. “I’ve made my choice and for me, it’s a values-based choice.”

Blair says his decision was cemented in personal discussions with Trudeau. It was influenced, too, by a major speech the Liberal leader gave in March that laid out a vision for liberty and diversity in Canada while condemning the Tories for a “corrosive” style of politics.

“It really for me articulated some of the things I really believe in and the things that I think make communities safer and more livable,” Blair said.

“In my conversations with Mr. Trudeau, I felt there was a tremendous alignment in our values,” Blair said.

In his speech, Trudeau accused the Conservatives of deliberately stoking terror worries among Canadians, warning “fear is a dangerous thing.”

Blair picked up on the theme saying that the “great threat to public safety is fear.”

“I understand the very real threat that terrorism presents to Canadian society and I think we’ve got to do everything we can to fight extremism and violence,” he said.

But he said that the communities impacted by radicalization cannot be further isolated as part of that terror fight.

“Their help is critically important. I would not in any way further alienate them or isolate them. I would want to include them in the solution,” he said.

Bill Blair wants to run for Liberals in fall election | Toronto Star.

To suggest Ottawa targets charities violates a vital public trust – Griffiths’ Apologetics

Griffiths might have a case if the Government and CRA were transparent about the audits underway and the charities targeted. But without even acknowledging this lack of transparency on the Government’s part, his defence has no credibility and ironically mirrors those who only see a conspiracy by not seeing any cause for concern.

It is the Government’s rhetoric and handling of the audits that has damaged the public trust. Groups are simply exercising their democratic rights in raising legitimate concerns regarding the apparent selective choice of charities for audit. Sad:

Yet this we all know: some charities spend far more than 10 per cent of their revenues on political activities and do so flagrantly. This abuse of the public trust by a small group of charities is what Revenue Canada’s “political” audits is cracking down on, and rightly so. The assertion that groups with a “left,” or for that matter, a “right” political orientation are being disproportionally singled out by the Charities Directorate is nonsense. What Revenue Canada is doing is focusing its audits on charities that publicly engage in advocacy (on their websites, in publications, through events, etc.) to determine if they are violating the 10 per cent cap and/or are involved in prohibited activities. Don’t just take my word on it. The director-general of the Charities Directorate, a career public servant, has gone on the record to rule out ideological biases in the audit process: “We are not targeting charities that have particular political leanings.”

And now we get to the deeply damaging part of this debate. The inference, repeated over and over in the media, that Revenue Canada officials are following the political direction of Stephen Harper’s cabinet, right down to the specific charities being selected for “political” audits. Such a contention is oblivious to how the federal civil service actually operates vis-à-vis its political masters.

As is the case thousands of times every day across the government, public servants in the Charities Directorate are setting about interpreting and acting on how best to bring about a specific policy outcome set out by Parliament. In this instance, nothing more and nothing less than ensuring that political activities by the charitable sector are in line with the current law and policy. To obviate the public’s trust in this basic process of governance – especially on the part of a department whose work is as sensitive as Revenue Canada’s – through wild speculation is the height of civic irresponsibility. If there are facts to back up the allegation that Revenue Canada is being partisan or ideological in its auditing of charities then we do indeed have a serious problem; one worthy of a vigorous national debate. But absent such a bombshell we are harming the public’s legitimate belief in the independence and competency of the federal civil service.

The debate we should be having is how charities could be more active participants in public policy discussion and formation. Should we be raising the 10 per cent cap on political activities? Can “think tanks” by virtue of what they do be charities? Are the legal definitions of what is or is not a legitimate charitable purpose too prescriptive for 21st-century Canada? All important questions, the answers to which will most certainly not be found in more conspiratorial parsing of Revenue Canada’s audit of political activities in the charitable sector.

To suggest Ottawa targets charities violates a vital public trust – The Globe and Mail.

Clement: “I’m here also for the public servant who wants to work hard, who needs sick benefits when they are truly sick.”

Really?

When I was truly sick (cancer), I could use my bank of sick days (and it was considerable) as well as drawing upon discretionary sick leave for executives on full salary, before going on long-term disability at 70 percent salary.

So these and related changes impact upon those with catastrophic illnesses in a very material way, not just curbing abuse (of which there is some):

But the government doesn’t necessarily expect to realize the full $900 million in savings, Treasury Board President Tony Clement said Wednesday after the weekly Conservative caucus meeting.

“The budget is the budget, and the savings are the savings,” Clement said. “But there is some breathing room for me recognized in that calculation.”

The government has told civil service unions it expects to eliminate the system that allows public servants to bank sick days and carry them over from year to year.

Ottawa is hoping instead to provide short-term disability benefits through an insurance company.

Talks have been going on for the last year and are expected to last until at least June with 47 meeting days scheduled to take place, on top of the nearly 200 negotiating sessions that have been held so far.

Clement said he wants to bargain in good faith, even though the government is already counting the $900 million in savings from future sick leave liability toward its projected $1.4-billion surplus in 2015-16.

“They clearly want a Liberal or an NDP government to negotiate with, who will roll over and accept their positions,” Clement said of the unions with which he is bargaining.

“I’m here for the taxpayer,” he said. “I’m here also for the public servant who wants to work hard, who needs sick benefits when they are truly sick.”

Clement says public servants’ sick days an easy target for cuts (paywall)