Working site on citizenship and multiculturalism issues.
2015/03/07 Leave a comment
Finally 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
2015/03/05 Leave a comment
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.
2015/02/28 Leave a comment
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.
2015/02/25 Leave a comment
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’
2015/02/24 Leave a comment
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.
2015/02/24 Leave a comment
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.
2015/02/21 Leave a comment
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.
2015/02/18 Leave a comment
More 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.
2015/02/14 1 Comment
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.
2015/02/13 Leave a comment
Irwin Cotler’s efforts to get more information on judicial appointments (see earlier Tories chastised for lack of racial diversity in judicial appointments, Racial Diversity Gap in the Courtroom, Forget 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:
Click image for book purchase
Multicultural Meanderings 