The Demonization of Stephen Harper

This is quite an (unintentionally) funny piece in its innuendo regarding unnamed former clerks, its many assertions (anecdote-based, bien sûr) and its systematic ignoring any evidence regarding flaws in the Government’s policy process or substance.

While some of the points regarding officials are valid (indeed I argued some myself in Policy Arrogance or Innocent Bias: Resetting Citizenship and Multiculturalism), this article has little nuance or balance.

And publishing under a nom de plume, hiding behind anonymity, is at best cowardly, at worst unethical, whether in social media or sites like this:

Retired senior federal public servants stand as an interesting révélateur of the true mindset of the senior Canadian federal public service. With retirement comes the possibility of speaking up, after years of extramural discretion on matters of partisan politics. It is not that active senior public servants have no view on these matters, but in a system that is supposed to have a professional non-partisan public service, such views are expected to be toned down (if not suppressed) at least externally when federal public servants are on active duty.

However, when senior federal public servants formally retire these days, many do not really retire. On the basis of their former status, they seek employment in a variety of positions outside the federal public service: lobbyists for industry, return to private practice for lawyers who might procure access to government officials, refugee in academe, etc.. From such new perches, they have a much greater licence to speak on any matters they feel strongly about – whether these views are competent and informed or not.

The wise ones remain quite discrete in retirement, for they feel they have a devoir de réserve. But most are not that wise. They rather sense that their special status as certified mandarins in the federal public service for a while, stands as a proof that they can be presumed to be, in their own mind at least, better informed and wiser than most. This status is perceived as carrying with it a responsibility to remain on guard for us, lesser Canadians, even in their new civilian life

Indeed, this special status has often been the major asset they have displayed to persuade their new bosses of their value-adding capabilities. Such special status is undoubtedly real when it comes to the personal links mandarins have retained with senior public servants still in active duties – and their ability to parlay such intelligence into advantages in their new positions – privileged access that can be used by universities, law firms, lobby firms, etc. for their own benefits.

But such mundane advantages are usually not the main asset that retired mandarins claim to possess. They most often feel that their tenure and experience as mandarins have definitely established them as persons of superior quality whose storytelling and judgments have greater intrinsic value than those of ordinary citizens on any matter they choose to address.

So certain former clerks of Privy Council, not especially known for their great wisdom when in active duty, but rather more for their craftiness and disingenuity, have had no hesitation, in retirement, in trotting themselves out into the public forum to denounce actions of the government now in place, on the sole basis of their supposed former moral authority being sufficient for their views to be regarded as consequential if not canonical.

One can certainly point to some former senior federal civil servants who have, in retirement, demonstrated their extraordinary intellectual resourcefulness by impressive endeavours: path-breaking books, enlightening papers, imaginative initiatives, etc. But most have not shined in that way. They have simply parlayed their former overblown status into financially profitable sinecures in organizations naïve enough to believe that their ‘greatness’ would be value-adding somewhat in the new setting.

Such matters however are only of interest to the chroniclers in the social pages of the Ottawa daily newspapers. What is much more interesting is the storytelling of those retired mandarins.

The demonization of Stephen Harper (free but requires login)

Michael Den Tandt: The Conservatives have Canadians soaking in fear

Funny and pointed commentary by Den Tandt:

Despite the psychological edge conferred on ISIS militants by illiteracy, innumeracy, zealotry and plain old stupidity, they really are not able to defeat the combined militaries of the whole world, led by the U.S. Air Force, which owns the sky and space. Yet here we are, locked in a stalemate, a token war in which Canada is participating with half-a-dozen old fighter jets, transport planes and a single company of soldiers. If the threat to our nation were pervasive, we’d have more invested — no disrespect to the Canadians serving valiantly over there now. But the fear certainly feels pervasive.

Next on the list of Things of Which We Should be Terrified comes the home-grown ISIS militant: Would-be Che Guevaras, misfits, drop-outs, rebellious teens and pot-heads fleeing the oppressive yoke of mom and dad, now fifth columnists for the jihadist horde. With Michael Zehaf-Bibeau as their poster child, this legion of highly-trained, lethal … but no, wait — they’re mainly witless incompetents, witness the Via Rail terror trial chronicled by my colleague, Christie Blatchford.

Ottawa is not under siege, nor does it feel itself to be: Any third-rate guest house in Kabul has more rigorous security screening than did last week’s Manning Centre conference, where the nation’s most powerful conservatives mixed and mingled. Hmm.

…The political question is simply this: Why so much distemper, now? It looks like nothing so much as an effort to shore up the Conservative base, comprising no more than 30% of the electorate and perhaps less. These are moves to harden the core, not win the centre — or persuade a plurality. If this is truly the game plan for Election 2015, then the governing party may be in worse shape than public polls indicate. The prospect of loss, they say, brings a fear all its own.

Michael Den Tandt: The Conservatives have Canadians soaking in fear

Niqab welcome in federal public service: Clement

That’s interesting. I am not so sure that in fact a niqab or burqa would be welcome in the federal government workplace but Clement’s comments are a welcome change from that of some of his colleagues.

Contrary to his assertion that hijabs and niqabs are frequently worn in the public service, the number of hijabs I believe is relatively small and I am not aware of any niqab-wearing federal employees. But if any reader knows of any cases, please advise.

Muslim women can’t wear a niqab at a citizenship ceremony but they are perfectly free to wear them working for Canada’s public service, says Treasury Board President Tony Clement.

In an interview with iPolitics, Clement said what counts for him as the head of the federal public service is how well someone gets the job done – not what they are wearing.

“If you are in your place of work or privately in your home or in your private life, what you wear is of no concern to the state,” Clement explained. “But the state does have a concern on citizenship and citizenship is a public demonstration of loyalty and allegiance to Canada and its values and its principles and that’s where the niqab is inappropriate.”

Clement said to his knowledge hijabs and niqabs “are frequently worn” in the public service.

“I’m sure we have employees in the public sector who wear a niqab – I’m sure we do.”

“If you’re carrying on your job and doing your job well then I don’t think we have a problem with that.

The one exception, he said, might be if a hijab or a niqab posed an operational or safety problem.

“I can’t talk about bona fide occupational requirement – if there is an occupational requirement that requires something that might be different.”

Niqab welcome in federal public service: Clement

Tony Clement concern about electronic information access queried – Politics – CBC News

Further to earlier news reports, further confirmation of a Minister not having thought things through, not to mention mixed messaging on the Open Data initiative:

Treasury Board President Tony Clement’s dire warning about why the government can’t release certain electronic data under access to information requests seems to have left his senior staff mystified, newly disclosed documents show.

In an interview late last year, Clement said that some database requests under the Access to Information Act can’t be released in their original electronic format because the numbers could be manipulated and “create havoc.”

At the time, Clement was responding to complaints that requests for electronic data often produced records in paper form that couldn’t  be scrutinized by a computer for patterns.

“That’s the balancing act that we have to have, that certain files, you don’t want the ability to create havoc by making it changeable online,” he told The Canadian Press in an interview.

But emails from Clement’s senior staff show the statement left them puzzled about why their minister would make the claim.

“It’s a headscratcher for me. Any idea what the minister is referring to?” wrote one staffer after checking the morning headlines on Dec. 23.

“It’s a speculative thing, no actual occurrence to date … I can’t think of what has not been released due to this perspective,” wrote another — Patrick McDermott, senior manager for open government systems at the Treasury Board secretariat. “What prompts this comment now is a mystery to me.”

For several years, Clement has been touting the Harper government’s proactive online posting of federal databases for free downloading, partly to encourage businesses to mine the data for profit. Canadian corporations trail their counterparts around the world in capitalizing on so-called “big data.”

‘I’m a bit surprised that the [minister] would raise this’

– email from Treasury Board official

The Open Data Portal now offers more than 240,000 free datasets, the vast majority from Natural Resources Canada, apparently without any concern that someone might use them to spread “falsehoods.”

At the same time as pushing this data, though, federal departments have come under fire for failing to deliver individual, non-published datasets requested under the Access to Information Act in their original format, often recreating them in censored paper versions.

Requesters asking for datasets under the Access to Information Act are sometimes given paper versions instead, making it impossible to use computers to sort data.

Departments have offered different explanations for delivering in paper format, but Clement’s comment was the first time a government official claimed the paper copies were designed to foil any statistical mischief.

“I’m a bit surprised that the [minister] would raise this — everyone in the OG (Open Government) community … is aware of the risk that data/info may be misused/applied/quoted etc. .. but that’s just the nature of the beast,” McDermott wrote.

“The trick is to rebut the ‘falsification,’ not speculatively prevent it from happening in the first place.”

In substance, completely silly and just making it hard for those of us who need and use government data on a regular or occasional basis.

Tony Clement concern about electronic information access queried – Politics – CBC News.

10 Inconvenient Truths: Policy Arrogance or Innocent Bias: Resetting Citizenship and Multiculturalism Deck

10 Inconvenient Truths - 2015 Cover.001Finally getting around to post the standard deck I have been using to talk about my book, and summarize some of the key messages.

10 Inconvenient Truths: Policy Arrogance or Innocent Bias Deck

Harper inadequate, inconsistent on China, former adviser says

Former Canadian Ambassador to Beijing, and Foreign Policy Advisor to PM, David Mulroney on the Harper Government. Picks up many of the same themes in my book Policy Arrogance or Innocent Bias: Resetting Citizenship and Multiculturalism (disclosure David is a former colleague of mine):

David Mulroney, Canada’s ambassador to China from 2009 to 2012, says Canada should boost its economic and diplomatic ties with China and even reinforce its naval presence off the west coast to show its serious about being a player in the region.

But Harper has failed to show adequate leadership and has been wildly inconsistent, with periods of estrangement and hostility followed by flurries of activity to try to woo Beijing, according to the ex-diplomat.

Government policy is too often directed by political partisans with “extreme ideological” agendas, who are motivated only by the goal of winning votes in immigrant communities in Canada.

“We need leadership from the top,” writes Mulroney, who was named Harper’s senior foreign and defence policy adviser when the Conservatives took power in 2006.

His book Middle Power, Middle Kingdom, to be published later this month by Penguin Canada, is likely to be controversial. His concern about Chinese money boosting housing costs in cities like Vancouver, reported in Tuesday’s Vancouver Sun, led to number of readers to contact The Sun sharing those concerns.

Mulroney, now at the University of Toronto’s Munk School of Global Affairs, is particularly critical of Canadian prime ministers — and especially Harper — who have used foreign policy to win favour with diaspora groups within Canada.

He said political leaders in countries such as India and China are decidedly unimpressed when a prime minister shows up with Canadian MPs returning to their, or their ancestors’, country of origin.

He said Harper is treating foreign leaders as “mere props” participating in “photo opportunities” aimed at ethnic media back in Canada.

“It would be naive and undemocratic to argue that domestic politics has no place in our foreign policy,” he writes. “But political leaders need to rely on something more than the most recent polling data in navigating international issues.”

Mulroney also challenges the Harper government’s “increasing preference” for rhetoric — “the more extreme the better” — over behind-the-scenes diplomacy.

“The resulting ‘megaphone diplomacy’ is gratifying to some audiences at home, but it erodes and undercuts whatever real influence Canada might have had.”

He says Canada’s approach to China needed an overhaul when the Liberals were ousted in 2006, as the Liberal “Team Canada” trade mission strategy had become outdated. Mulroney also argues that China’s human rights violations were becoming increasingly problematic for Canadians, and that the federal Liberal party under Jean Chretien and Paul Martin was “equally unbalanced on the side of unwarranted optimism and uncritical acceptance” of China.

And he in no way underplays China’s dark side, pointing out that China aggressively spies in Canada.

And Beijing also undermines long-standing work by Canada and other western countries in promoting democratic values in developing countries.

“China does support odious regimes, and it is a challenger of the liberal international order.”

The author, who notes that Harper and many of his ministers and aides have long treated Canadian diplomats as “incompetent and politically unreliable” closet Liberals, also acknowledges that some of his foreign service colleagues aren’t faultless.

“They contributed to this caricature through their own inability to fully respect the concerns that motivated the newly elected government.”

But he says Conservative mistrust of its bureaucratic advisers went to strange lengths, and cites the close relationship between former Foreign Minister John Baird and China’s former ambassador to Canada, Zhang Junsai.

Baird was unusually candid with the diplomat about Canada’s objectives — a frankness which wasn’t reciprocated — and the two consulted closely during and after Baird’s trips to China while senior Canadian diplomats were left out.

My favourite line:

“It was as if it was more damning to be suspected of having liberal sympathies than it was to actually be a Communist, and as if the Canadian government was intent on conducting foreign policy without its public service.”

via Harper inadequate, inconsistent on China, former adviser says.

Brunt of public service cuts outside of Ottawa, report finds

Not surprising, the people making the decisions are in Ottawa-Gatineau. One of the factors contributing to the dramatic fall in citizenship processing in 2012 was cutbacks to CIC’s regional network:

“The bottom line is that, proportionately, there have been more cuts in the regions than in the NCR,” said Mostafa Askari, assistant parliamentary budget officer.

The report found about two-thirds of the job cuts were outside the National Capital Region, where the head offices of most departments and agencies are located.

Overall, the number of jobs in the federal public service has fallen by 7.5 per cent – 6.5 per cent in the National Capital Region – since the 2012 restraint budget.

At that time, the government said 70 per cent of the reductions would come from operational and “back office” efficiencies and wouldn’t even be noticed by most Canadians. The regions, where most of the front-line employees work providing programs and services to Canadians, were to be largely unaffected.

The bulk of the job cuts were supposed to come in the Ottawa area, where the size of the public service has mushroomed over the past decade. The government estimated that 12,000 bureaucrats would be laid off and the remaining 7,000 cuts would be through its five per cent yearly attrition rate.

The PBO offered no explanation as to why a larger portion of the public service has shifted to the national capital or whether this indicated a shift in the nature of work. The public service has changed considerably, becoming more “professional” in hiring new employees and facing an unprecedented generational turnover as baby boomers retire.

The public service has come under fire for being too Ottawa-focused, isolated and out of touch with Canadians. A big focus of the modernization of the public service now underway is to consult and collaborate more when making decisions.

Brunt of public service cuts outside of Ottawa, report finds | Ottawa Citizen.

What we’re talking about when we talk about ‘judicial activism’

Emmet Macfarlane commenting on the recent set of articles on judicial activism:

In the wake of landmark decisions on assisted suicide and the right to strike (among others), there appears to be a new renaissance for decrying the “judicial activism” of the Supreme Court of Canada.

Andrew Coyne accuses the Court of ignoring precedent, rewriting the constitution and basically lacking “any rational basis” for its decisions. Conrad Black is equally critical. Stockwell Day accuses the Court of writing law, rather than merely applying existing law. Gordon Gibson arguably goes even farther, calling the Court “the greatest threat to our democracy,” and accusing it of “making” rather than merely “interpreting” the law. And Brian Lee Crowley complains of the “unaccountable” and virtually unlimited control judges have over the meaning of the Charter, allowing them to trump legislation and introduce uncertainty into the law. In the view of all of these critics, it is asserted that judges have abandoned the “appropriate” level of judicial restraint.

…Instead, judicial activism has an empirical definition that can be understood in both a quantitative and qualitative sense. In a quantitative sense, activism can be measured based on the frequency with which the Court invalidates laws or impacts government policy. A deferential court that never overturns government decisions is not activist, a court that always does so is the most activist. As political scientists like Christopher Manfredi argue, judicial activism can be seen as being on a spectrum. Our Supreme Court is “activist” in about 35 percent of Charter cases.

But saying that does not make a claim about whether this level of activism is inappropriate or desirable. Indeed, given the whole purpose of the Charter of Rights, a completely “restrained” Court would arguably be as problematic as one that is constantly making policy. Whether the Court is “too activist” is a normative judgment that people are free to argue about. But under this definition, to say that activism is meaningless or does not exist would be incorrect.

…Judicial activism is a tricky concept, and it is often used in completely subjective ways. The public debate about judicial power is incredibly important precisely because the Court wields so much policy influence. A lot of the time charges of “activism” do not seem particularly helpful in clarifying the terms of that debate. A big problem is that the Court’s critics and critics of judicial activism are both wrong, albeit in opposite directions. The former think that judges should just stick to “the law,” as if that were possible, while the latter think the Court’s decisions are only about the law because the policy consequences are merely the result of what the constitution means.

Dismissing the notion of judicial activism entirely is to deny that judges have the discretion—which they invariably exercise—to act with more or less deference to the decisions of democratically elected governments. In this sense, the concept itself remains useful and important.

What we’re talking about when we talk about ‘judicial activism’

Federal government to extend sick-leave changes to executives

I was “lucky” that my cancer happened under the old rules:

Unlike unionized employees, executives can get an extra 130 days of paid sick days once in their careers – at the discretion of deputy ministers – which they don’t have to repay. They can use it all at once for a prolonged illness or draw upon it as needed for a recurring illness or during recovery. It’s expected this special leave would disappear under the Conservatives’ plan.

Many executives have banked more unused sick leave than other workers as a cushion in the face of prolonged illness. That stockpile would disappear too.

The government has paid 100 per cent of the executives’ premiums for disability insurance since 1990, while unionized employees contribute 15 per cent of their premium costs. It’s unclear what would happen to that perk.

Executives – along with diplomats and scientists – use the least amount of sick leave in the public service, although they claim more than their counterparts in the private sector. They typically take off less than half the number of sick-leave days of other public servants, who average about 11.5 days a year.

The Association of Professional Executives of the Public Service of Canada (APEX) said the latest five-year trend showed 75 per cent of executives took less than five days annually; 54 per cent took less than one or two days and 30 per cent took no sick leave at all.

Still, APEX, which has tracked the health and work of executives with studies for more than 15 years, found executives are taking more sick days than ever. They averaged 3.5 days in 1997; 3.3 days in 2002 – then 4.3 days in 2007 and 5.4 days in 2012.

Again, these changes will impact those struck with catastrophic illnesses, not those who are abusing the system. And as the stats indicate, little evidence that executives are in fact abusing sick leave and related provisions.

Federal government to extend sick-leave changes to executives | Ottawa Citizen.

Women reach top in PS but lack clout male counterparts had, study shows

Interesting study contrasting the number and impact (disclosure I was interviewed for the study):

It’s one of the many paradoxes uncovered by Carleton University researchers Marika Morris and Pauline Rankin in an interim report on a study of female leadership in the public service where women now dominate, holding more than 55 per cent of all jobs and 45 per cent of the executive positions below deputy ministers.

The study is part of the Women in the Public Service Project, run by the Washington-based Wilson Centre, aimed at getting women into 50 per cent of the world’s public service jobs by 2050.

Canada stands out with a public service that already exceeds the 50 per cent female target. The study is examining the impact women are having on shaping the public service and finding ways to measure it. The report is a springboard for such a debate at Carleton on Tuesday.

“With women accounting for 45 per cent of the executive rank, we no longer ask how to get more women in the public service but what difference it makes having them there,” said Morris.

…But that’s also when public servants started losing their monopoly grip on policy and as the sole, trusted advisers to ministers.

“So just as women are entering senior levels, it is harder now than ever to have an impact,” said Morris.

Women who took executive jobs over the past decade arrived just as developing big policy ideas took a back seat to economic restraint. Accountability, spending and job cuts, and avoiding risks were the order of the day.

It’s also a time when the trust between politicians and bureaucrats is low.

“I heard a lot about changes in the past 10 years, less trust and diminished policy-making role, so now that more women … have made their entry into management, they have less responsibility to actually create policy and programs than public servants had in the past,” said Morris.

She said women also moved into the senior jobs with a management style at odds with the hierarchy and traditional lines of accountability. Morris said many executives — both men and women — interviewed felt they “made a difference” and that often the biggest impact they had came from being “collaborative” leaders.

Women reach top in PS but lack clout male counterparts had, study shows | Ottawa Citizen.