Alberta plans document dump of freedom of information requests

The reaction is almost comical. Too much information, No opportunities for scoops. Do the critics really prefer the federal approach of not releasing, or delaying to the max, information?

But the first two concerns raised by officials strike me as valid:

Sources said the freedom of information co-ordinators were blindsided by the Prentice directive and immediately identified several problems the new policy could create, including:

The potential for privacy breaches.

An increased legal risk for the government if it discloses copyrighted material, or confidential business information.

Backlash from the media, as the new policy would effectively eliminate scoops and undermine long-term investigations.

The inability of the government to justify charging fees for documents that would soon be publicly posted.

Some freedom of information co-ordinators also privately questioned the propriety of Prentice personally ordering a change to policy while the privacy commissioner’s office is conducting an investigation into political interference in freedom of information.

Sources said these concerns were largely ignored. Co-ordinators were told they had to implement the new policy as planned, although legal research had yet to be completed.

I had initially been less sympathetic to the media concerns but listening to journalists discuss the impact on P&P helped me understand the possible implications for scoops and longer-term investigations. But all they need is a window of exclusivity (a week or two) as they should have a head start in knowing what they would be looking for in a way that most would not.

It is a more sophisticated way to manage controversies; flooding, rather than withholding, information. But to make this work, all documents released should be indexed and tagged on Google to ensure easily searchable.

Alberta plans document dump of freedom of information requests – Edmonton – CBC News.

Did losing the long-form census weaken Canada’s jobs data?

toronto-census-nhs-756x1024More on the Census and National Household Survey, and Kevin Milligan’s analysis of how the shift has degraded the quality of the Labour Force Survey:

I say ‘presumably’ because the most recent complete methodology document I can find is from 2008. In that 2008 methodology document, it is very clear that the Census plays a very important role in the methodology of the Labour Force Survey. In fact, a quick ‘control F’ search of the document reveals the word ‘census’ to appear 127 times. Looking through these instances, you can see the Long-Form Census was used in a variety of ways. Sometimes, it was to cross-check an assumption or a decision they made in designing the Labour Force Survey. In other places, it is clear they used the Long-Form Census explicitly to pick which households get surveyed. To give one precise example, page 19 of the methodology document explicitly references income taken from the 2001 Census—and income is not available on the Short-Form Census.

In short, I think Mr. Smith’s ‘myth’ is a miss.

I have complete confidence in Mr. Smith’s claim that the 2015 Labour Force Survey methodology now uses only the Short-Form Census for selecting and weighting households. However, it is equally clear that until now the Labour Force Survey relied on the Long-Form Census. This change raises several important questions: Why make a change? Why was the National Household Survey discarded? Is the Labour Force Survey improved by ignoring the National Household Survey? Why and how?

I have a pretty good guess why Statistics Canada discarded its own expensive National Household Survey for designing the Labour Force Survey. The reason: the response rate from the National Household Survey is low, and varies strongly within regions. As one example, above is a map made by Dwight Follick that compares the response rate at the ‘dissemination area’ level for Toronto from the 2006 Long-Form Census and the 2011 National Household Survey. Similar maps are available from Mr. Follick for Montreal, Ottawa, London, Calgary, Edmonton, and Vancouver. The pictures aren’t pretty—the response rate fell dramatically, rendering the results of the National Household Survey much less reliable.

Mr. Smith might be correct that the Labour Force Survey methodology changes aren’t large enough to make much difference. But we will never actually know, since we can’t compare the new results to the previous methodology because the 2011 Long-Form Census doesn’t exist so we can’t check.

I will continue to use and trust the Labour Force Survey, myself. However, the switch to the National Household Survey has degraded some of the tools that Statistics Canada has used until now to make the Labour Force Survey—and other Statistics Canada products—reliable.

Did losing the long-form census weaken Canada’s jobs data? – Macleans.ca.

Charitable foundation in charge of promoting Canada in Britain in uproar and accusing High Commission of meddling

Another short-sighted decision and one that reduces discussion and debate (disclosure I once gave a presentation at one of their annual meetings and it was an interesting mix of topics).

And the link between activities and charitable status echoes the choice of Canadian charities being audited by CRA:

The charitable foundation given the job of promoting Canada in Britain is in an uproar after several board members quit this week, accusing the Canadian High Commission of meddling.

Historian Margaret MacMillan and think-tank advisor Diana Carney, the wife of the Bank of England chief, are among the four people who handed in their resignations.

In her resignation letter, Ms. MacMillan said it’s clear the high commission plans to take over the Foundation for Canadian Studies in the United Kingdom with the aim of promoting Canada’s interests as it sees fit.

The foundation’s website says it co-operates with — but operates separately from — the diplomatic mission, which has made financial contributions over the years.

The organization, a British charity with an endowment of about $2.3-million, was set up in 1975 to support teaching, research and publishing about Canada in Britain, as well as foster academic ties and student exchanges between Canadian and British universities.

….It  was once among a handful of foreign charities allowed to issue tax receipts in Canada.

But in Mr. Campbell’s December letter, obtained by The Canadian Press, he advised board members that this status had ended.

He went on to add that the federal government’s decision might change if the foundation also changed.

“I understand from my colleagues in Ottawa that our renewal request would be entertained if the foundation were to expand its mission,” he wrote.

Charitable foundation in charge of promoting Canada in Britain in uproar and accusing High Commission of meddling

Why don’t we have more female judges? – Macleans.ca

Irwin Cotler’s efforts to get more information on judicial appointments (see earlier Tories chastised for lack of racial diversity in judicial appointmentsRacial Diversity Gap in the CourtroomForget MacKay, a woman’s place is on the bench):

The justice minister’s office explains that in the case of Cotler’s most recent question, there simply wasn’t enough time to do what would have had to have been done to answer Cotler’s questions.

In the order-paper question that Mr. Cotler tabled last December, Q-836, he was asking the department to go back through 21 years of information, a great deal of which would require a manual search of the paper records. The department only has 45 days to answer order-paper questions and there was just not enough time.

It does seem like a rather large project.

Cotler and Liberal MP Sean Casey today released a statement calling for greater diversity on the bench and the questions raised by last year’s controversy—whatever Peter MacKay said or didn’t say—still seem worthwhile. While Ontario publishes information on applicants for judicial publications, we have no such data for federal appointments. At what rate are women applying to be federal judges? How has that rate changed over time? And how has the rate of appointment of women changed over time? Those don’t seem like questions for which it would be unreasonable to expect answers to be somehow procured.

I don’t think this is true.

When I compiled a list of women and visible minorities in provincial legislatures, it only took me a week or so to go through names and photos of provincial legislature members. Going through judicial appointments should not be that time consuming (only an average 69 per year between 2006-12).

Why don’t we have more female judges? – Macleans.ca.

Direct link to the table for 2006-12 appointments:

breakdown (pdf)

Think tanks need to show us the money – Yakabuski

Good column by Konrad Yakabuski on think tanks as charities or political actors (see also Miles Corak’s How to think about “think” tanks):

The Fraser Institute raised 15 per cent, or about $6.6-million, of its total revenue from foreign sources in the four fiscal years to 2012. Not to single out Fraser – whose research, like that of its peers, is rigorous but only half the story – but no one could argue that such money has gone toward charity.

“Fundamentally, think tanks on the left and right have been abusing the privilege of being a registered charity,” says Toronto lawyer Mark Blumberg, a leading expert in the field. Since charities are only allowed to devote 10 per cent of their revenue to political activities, “you could argue some of them haven’t been following the rules.”

The line between political advocacy and policy analysis has become increasingly blurred. Three years ago, the Harper government made a big to-do about anti-pipeline environmental groups taking foreign donations. And the CRA has started cracking down on organizations that confuse political advocacy with charity.

Perhaps it’s time we also focused on think tanks. They play a valuable role in democracies, but their research is only as credible as the amount of disclosure they provide. The pro-transparency blog Transparify recommends that journalists add the phrase “does not disclose its funders” when reporting on research produced by such think tanks. It’s advice worth following.

Think tanks need to show us the money – The Globe and Mail.

Ottawa seeks job market clarity – Labour market survey

Good course correction:

The $8-million survey, which was announced several months ago and is just now under way, marks a return to more traditional methods after the Conservative government ran into criticism for relying heavily on a much less expensive private software program.

The Globe and Mail revealed that the government’s claims were the result of a problem with the data, which included jobs from the classified site Kijiji where the same job can be reposted many times, producing a false impression of a rising demand for labour.

When jobs from Kijiji were removed from the data set, the rise in job vacancies essentially disappeared.

Yet one year later, government officials and other labour market observers continue to struggle with the best way to measure the job market in an age when traditional job ads have been replaced with online job boards.

Two federal departments – Finance Canada and Employment and Social Development Canada – continue to pay for a database of online job ads from Wanted Analytics. The company runs software that scans online job boards as well as individual company websites to produce a database of jobs. The database it provides to government departments can be altered to include or remove various sources, including Kijiji.

Finance Canada renewed its contract with Wanted in December for another year at a cost of $18,250.

A Finance Canada spokesperson said the department uses the data along with other sources – such as Statistics Canada and the Bank of Canada – as part of its analysis of the labour market.

Employment and Social Development Canada said it does not use the database for labour market projections.

“This data can still be useful to the department to better understand current labour market conditions as they pertain to online job postings,” ESDC spokesperson Simon Rivet wrote in an e-mail.

Dan Kelly, the president of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, said his organization supports the new survey even though some employers complain that answering questionnaires is a form of red tape.

Mr. Kelly said he expects the new survey will support the view of employers that labour shortages are real and that measures such as the Temporary Foreign Worker Program, while controversial, are needed.

“Ultimately we need better sources that everyone can rely on and accept as a true state of affairs on the labour market,” he said.

Now all we need is to reinstate the Census.

Ottawa seeks job market clarity – The Globe and Mail.

One in five Canadian public servants claims harassment on the job

Seems familiar and little change from when I was in government a number of years ago:

Survey results, at a glance:

Employee Engagement:

– 93% say they will put in the extra effort to get the job done

– 79% like their job, a decrease from 84% in 2008

– 74% of employees report a sense of satisfaction from their work

Leadership:

– 75% of employees feel their supervisor keeps them informed about issues affecting their work

– 47% of employees say essential information flows effectively from senior management to staff

Performance Management:

– 79% say their work is assessed against identified goals and objectives

– 72% say they get useful feedback about their job performance

Training and Development:

– 63% say they get the training they need to do their job

– 52% feel their organization does a good job of supporting career development

Empowerment:

– 66% feel they have support to provide a high level of service

– 62% of employees believed that they have opportunities to provide input into decisions that affect their work, down from 68% in 2011

Work-life balance and workload:

– 78% say immediate supervisors supports the use of flexible work arrangements

–70% say they can complete their assigned workload during their regular working hours

–71% of employees say they have support for work-life balance

Respectful and ethical workplace:

– 94% say they have positive working relationships with colleagues

– 80% feel their colleagues behave in a respectful manner

– 79% feel that their organization respects them

–82% believe that employees in their organization carry out their duties in the public’s interest

Harassment:

– 19% say they were harassed in the past two years

Discrimination:

– Eight per cent of employees said they faced discrimination in the past two years. (The most common types were: Sex at 24 per cent; age at 23 per cent; and race at 20 per cent.)

One in five public servants claims harassment on the job | Ottawa Citizen.

PM’s charity audits look for ‘bias, one-sidedness’

The more information that comes out, the more it smells of bias in the choice of charities it audits:

The CRA says it will do 60 audits, and there are 86,000 charities in Canada. So that’s a one-in-1,400 chance of being audited by random selection. Only it’s not random. The CRA admits it’s looking for red flags, including “bias.”

“Audit selection occurs after a substantial screening process,” the CRA said in an email. “This may include considering issues such as ‘point of view,’ ‘bias,’ or ‘one-sidedness.'”

In Dying With Dignity’s case, its offending activities apparently included attempts to change public opinion.

“It is not legally charitable to engage in pressure tactics on governments such as swaying public opinion, promoting an attitude of mind, creating a climate of opinion,” the CRA’s auditor wrote to Dying With Dignity.

Still, there is a whole class of charities, known as think tanks whose major purpose is creating a climate of opinion or promoting an attitude of mind, activities that fall under the general category of “research as a charitable activity.”

“Think tanks make it very clear from the beginning that their objective is to shape public opinion, and public policy,” says Western University political science professor Donald Abelson. He has spent two decades studying think tanks in Canada and the U.S. and he’s currently writing a book about them.

Just read the annual reports from some of Canada’s leading think tanks to find proud claims of “shaping the national discourse”, “prodding governments, opinion leaders and the general public,” “changing the minds of decision makers,” yet none of that activity apparently trips the wire between political and charitable activity.

“We’re in kind of a grey area, particularly over the last several years, where the lines between policy research and political advocacy have become increasingly blurred,” Abelson said.

Which circles back to the prickly question of how to define “political activities.”

Why the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives and not the Fraser Institute? Why Dying with Dignity and not the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms or the Canadian Constitution Foundation?

PM’s charity audits look for ‘bias, one-sidedness’ – Health – CBC News.

Cities to weigh loss of long-form census for community planning

Yet another group weighing in on the ongoing implications and costs associated with replacing the Census with the National Household Survey:

Across the country, cities are feeling the impact of the census changes, said Brad Woodside, president of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities and mayor of Fredericton.

“We’ve heard from our members that the change to the new National Household Survey is impacting their ability to effectively plan and monitor the changing needs of their communities,” he said in an e-mailed statement to The Globe. “We support all efforts to increase the reliability of the data from the census.”

Local governments rely on this information to understand the changing needs of communities, and make a range of decisions, “from where to establish new bus routes, build affordable housing and provide programs for new Canadians, he said. “We continue to call on Statistics Canada to work with municipalities to provide communities of all sizes the most reliable information from the available data.”

Mr. Tory said he will raise the issue with the mayors of the country’s largest cities when they meet in Toronto later this week. The topic is not on the agenda for the gathering, which begins Wednesday evening, but he said he can bring it up in informal discussions.

“I believe you really should try to have the best possible evidence in front of you when you are making important decisions,” he said Tuesday. “I can ask if this is a problem they are facing.”

Cities to weigh loss of long-form census for community planning – The Globe and Mail.

Globe editorial makes the same point but equally unlikely to have much effect:

There is now incontrovertible evidence the Conservative government’s 2010 decision to scrap the mandatory census questionnaire, which quantified everything from family income to ethnicity to regional demographics, was an unalloyed catastrophe.

Opposition has come from think-tanks of every political persuasion, business leaders, charities, public administrators and basically anyone with a PhD. Thanks to a deliberately sabotaged census, we know less about Canada in 2011 than we did about Canada in 2006. Who thinks that’s a good idea?

What’s more, conducting a halfwitted census turned out to be more expensive. The 2011 voluntary household survey increased errors, reduced accuracy, chopped the response rate by 30 per cent – and cost an extra $22-million. Congratulations: The Harper government figured out how to spend more for less.

The decision to kneecap the census was transparently ideological, a rash exercise in partisan narrow-casting, and was quickly exposed as such.

Dozens of experts predicted the damage that would be wrought. It’s time for the Conservative government to finally acknowledge how right they were.

The next opportunity for the House to revisit the Census Act will come next month via another private member’s bill – this one tabled by Conservative backbencher Joe Preston.

It would remove two aspects that are problematic to some Conservatives: jail for refusal to complete the form, and automatic public disclosure after 92 years.

There is still resistance in Mr. Preston’s party to bringing back the mandatory long form. We hope that removing the central justifications for killing it represents an evolving mindset.

Some mistakes are easy to reverse. It may be too late to restore a proper census in 2016, but a return in 2021 should be inevitable.

The census: Little knowledge is a dangerous thing – The Globe and Mail

Is Harper’s terror bill terrifying — or just redundant? – Kheiriddin

On the remarkable political cynicism of the Government with respect to security according to Tasha Kheiriddin:

So why have the Tories chosen to create new offences instead? Three words: the 2015 election. Enforcing existing legislation isn’t sexy. You can’t take ownership of Section 46 of the Criminal Code — it’s been there for years. But you can talk ad nauseum about the new tough anti-terror laws you’ve created. It’s perfect fodder for the doorstep and a great distraction from the dismal economy — and the Conservatives know it.

And public opinion polls suggest enough Canadians are on board to make this a winning issue. A recent Nanos survey found that 66 per cent of Canadians agree with the PM that we are at war with terrorists. Sixty-five per cent of respondents agreed that the “government should have the power to remove websites or posts on the Internet that it believes support the proliferation of terrorism in Canada.” Forty-eight per cent of Canadians feel the system is not up to the task at the moment, vs. 44 per cent who believe the situation is satisfactory.

Bill C-51 neatly taps into all these concerns, while leaving a major issue unadressed: Who will be watching the watchers? According to Ottawa, there’s enough oversight already. On CTV`s Question Period, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety Roxanne James said, “We are not interested in creating needless red tape.”

That’s a slap in the face to our Five Eyes allies, all of whom have more extensive oversight mechanisms in place. Creating such measures in Canada would not be a waste of money or admission of weakness. It would be a nod to common sense — especially since C-51 does not have a sunset clause, as previous anti-terror legislation did.

Bottom line: The new bill represents electioneering at its finest. While it improves intelligence-sharing and gives authorities more powers to detain suspected terrorists, it presents privacy concerns, curbs freedom of speech, and duplicates existing offences, while foregoing any increase in oversight.

Canada’s existing treason law — the one the Crown used to hang Louis Riel