Ralph Heintzman: Creeping politicization in the public service

Heintzman on the Finance Department’s crossing the line and calling for stronger action by the Clerk:

But we don’t need to wait for action until the next Parliament. The arrival of a new clerk gives her an opportunity to provide the kind of leadership for which the rest of the public service yearns.

It’s time to stand up for a professional, non-partisan public service, as described in all the official laws, regulations and policies of the government of Canada. But too often betrayed in practice.

It’s not enough to reaffirm, verbally, “the principles of a non-partisan professional public service,” as the clerk did in a recent interview (Canadian Government Executive, 2 February 2015). Words like these are only hot air if they’re contradicted by public service behaviour. The walk has to match the talk.

If the clerk wants her words to be taken seriously, she should start by doing something about the unaddressed and still uncorrected case of the department of finance. And she should tell us what’s being done to prevent public servants from crossing the line, from non-partisan to partisan communications, in future.

Ralph Heintzman: Creeping politicization in the public service | Ottawa Citizen.

CRA audits of charities look fair but feel foul – Don McRae

Looking and finding patterns in the selection of charities for CRA audit:

The Charities Program Update states that one of the factors in building the audit plan was that groups from all four charitable categories were audited. (The categories are relief of poverty, advancement of education, advancement of religion, and other purposes of benefit to the community.)

As of Jan. 31, 2014, there were 31 files under audit. Twenty-two of the 31 audits were community benefit groups (where environmental, social justice and human rights groups are found). This segment, which is 23.3 per cent of all charities, makes up 71 per cent of the 31 audits. There appears to be no cause for an over-representation of these groups as they make up only 18.5 per cent of all charities revoked for cause since 1967.

In a Canadian Press story last August, the director general of the charities directorate, Cathy Hawara, explained the audit selection process. She said the CRA considered formal complaints from citizens, lobby groups, MPs or even cabinet ministers. (Having a complaint from a minister raises questions about the selection process.) These external complaints led to 30 “leads” to investigate.

From 2008-09 to 2010-11, there was an average of 24 such complaints to the CRA each year. This went up to 139 complaints in 2011-12 and 159 the year after that. Ethical Oil, the lobby group with Conservative ties that encourages “people, businesses and governments to choose Ethical Oil from Canada’s oilsands,” made several complaints and at least five of these groups are being audited.

Of the 20 self-identified charities, 11 do some work on environmental issues and seven work on social justice or international development. Seven of the 20 have had their federal funding eliminated since 2006. KAIROS, the group that was famously not recommended by the former CIDA minister Bev Oda, is being audited under the auspices of the United Church of Canada. Four other groups identified on the church’s website as partners are being audited. Some of the audits have taken years, draining staff time, resources and energy from the organizations.

The Conservative government has assured Canadians that the system of political activity audits is fair and neutral. The limited evidence we have suggests a different conclusion. To paraphrase Frodo in The Lord of the Rings, the system looks fair but feels foul.

There are two major losers in this process. The first are Canadians, who will not benefit from the research, experience and advice of Canadian charities. The second is the CRA, which must defend what appears to be a stunted and warped selection process by finding new ways to say “trust us.”

CRA audits of charities look fair but feel foul | Toronto Star.

Let there be light, and access to information, in Ottawa – Globe Editorial

Cannot agree more, even if in my former life, reviewing ATIP requests was a chore:

When in doubt, disclose – that is one of the admirable messages delivered last week by Suzanne Legault, the Information Commissioner of Canada, in her report on how to modernize the federal government’s access-to-information system.

In fact, the principle in question is even broader. The presumption should be that any document made for a public, governmental purpose should be made public in the first place; that is, it should be posted on the Internet when it is created, and made available to a citizen seeking the information – unless there is some valid, solid reason not to do so. In other words, most public documents should be open “by default.” The burden of proof should be on the concealer.

The privacy of citizens will often be such a reason; secrecy in governmental activity is less often a solid ground.

The current ATI law is 30 years old, and has been amended in only minor ways since then. Governments and bureaucracies have little incentive to provide most information. This history demonstrates that both Liberals and Conservatives are to blame; we may well doubt that the NDP will be any better if they ever come to power in Ottawa.

All this should be, and could be, much easier in an age of electronic documents, when transmitting information is convenient and easy, and when metal filing cabinets are mostly obsolete. But that has not happened.

One recommendation in Ms. Legault would simplify life for everybody. The charging of fees for requests should end – New Brunswick has already done this in 2011.

The most fraught access-to-information question is cabinet confidences – that is, what is genuinely part of the deliberations of the cabinet, and what is being used as “a cloak” to conceal information. Ms. Legault is right that “purely factual and background information” should not treated as cabinet confidences, but “analyses of problems and policy options” may be another matter.

The fact, however, that cabinet confidence was invoked 3,136 times in 2013-2014 gives us pause. Ms. Legault’s recommendation that a few members of her office should be able to assess whether cabinet confidence is being used for its proper purpose is a good one – as is characteristic of this excellent report as a whole.

via Let there be light, and access to information, in Ottawa – The Globe and Mail.

Contemporary Directions in Canadian Citizenship and Multiculturalism – Toronto Event

Will be in Toronto today talking about the general political/public service issues as well as citizenship.

York U Event

How complexity imperils faith in our public institutions – Hugh Segal

Thoughtful comments. Money quote:

One must also be clear that certain aspects of the public sector have an interest in the salutary obfuscation of complexity. National security agencies, finance departments, central banks, some immigration and social service regimes find complexity and conflicting goals and applications helpful in maintaining their unchallenged jurisdiction and broad discretion. Their intent may be constructive but constructing through rules, regulations, contradictory and time-sensitive criteria and related machinations a cloud of uncertainty raises complexity and its construction to an act of sheer artistry.

The challenge for governments and those who care about democracy is not of doing away with complexity – which in a multifaceted, multi-racial and economically diverse society is unavoidable. The challenge is in finding ways to reduce it, simplify it and manage it so that the complexity itself does not destroy the efficacy of public institutions but even the public desire for those institutions to exist and be of service in the first place.

How complexity imperils faith in our public institutions – The Globe and Mail.

Stewart Prest: An informal coalition of experts has become the most effective opposition to the Tory government

Interesting piece on the emergence of coalitions to oppose recent government legislation:

Between C-51 and C-23, we are gaining a good sense of what an effective contemporary opposition coalition looks like. In both cases, participation has extended far beyond what might be called “typical” activism to include a range of principled, non-partisan and evidence-based opinions. Many members are drawn from civil society, but I would argue the coalition as a whole is not synonymous with it.

Key actors in both examples include academics working together in large groups, encompassing different disciplines and approaches; senior civil servants, both current and former; members of the legal profession; both partisan and non-partisan voices within what for lack of a better term I’ll call the country’s broader political class (former statesmen, editorial boards, columnists, and so on); maximal indigenous leaders; and dissenting voices within the country’s conservative movement.

Beyond studiously resisting appearances of partisanship, many within such coalitions have taken pains to note wherever possible ways in which their concerns might be addressed without undermining the government’s stated objectives. They attempt to remain politically neutral even in their opposition to the proposed legislation, seeking to offer the government advice on how to implement its preferred agenda while taking into consideration things like respect for human rights, the potential violations of the Charter, and important elements of political convention within the Canadian context, particularly those associated with maintaining the integrity and legitimacy of the Canadian political system as a whole.

Stewart Prest: An informal coalition of experts has become the most effective opposition to the Tory government

In politics, it’s dangerous to take the low road: Bruce Anderson

Bruce Anderson, is his usual diplomatic way, makes strong points about wedge politics, topical given some of the comments by Conservative MPs in particular:

They [political strategists] know that voters have had a bellyful of manufactured drama – politicians getting hot and bothered about issues that shouldn’t be at or near the top of the agenda.

For one reason, the audience can spot the manipulation. It’s like a magic trick when the audience has figured out how the illusion is done: not only is it not entertaining, it’s awkward and embarrassing. At best, voters might just ignore you, because they know the tactic is not serious, just a game.

But the bigger reason to hesitate is the risk of starting a hazardous chain reaction, one that gets outside your control quickly. When you use a controversial issue to rally your base, there is a greater risk of also hardening and energizing your opponents too.

There are highly skilled and experienced campaign teams all across the spectrum, people who know how to turn a wedge attack aimed against them into an opportunity to raise money and ire and generate a backlash.

The late U.S. politician Adlai Stevenson (who twice failed in presidential bids against Dwight Eisenhower) said, almost 60 years ago, “the hardest thing about any political campaign is how to win without proving that you are unworthy of winning.”

It would be naïve to suggest that we’re in for a new golden age of only positive campaigning. But a pretty fair case can be made that voters are noticing and responding well to high-road campaigning, which reveals how fed up they are with the opposite.

And the smartest campaigners know that wedge issues are becoming less like a magic potion for electoral success, and more like nitroglycerine: a choice that could go pretty badly, if fumbled.

In politics, it’s dangerous to take the low road – The Globe and Mail.

Tory-linked charity behind monument declared it was not active politically

Another illustration that charities chosen for CRA audits, and those not chosen, appear to reflect ideological or political criteria:

The charity behind the campaign to erect a monument to the victims of communism has declared zero political activity in its five-year history, even though it originally told the Canada Revenue Agency some of its work would be political.

A review of Tribute to Liberty’s official filings with the CRA reveals a clear intention to engage in political activity. When asked if it planned to engage in political activities, it answered “Yes” in its 2009 application for charitable status. It said this would involve contacting MPs and senators to gain their support for the project.

Yet, in the five years that followed, the charity answered “No” each time it was asked by the CRA in annual reporting forms whether it conducted political activity.

Dozens of Canadian charities have faced scrutiny since the 2012 Conservative budget set aside $8-million for CRA audits to determine whether they are following rules regarding political activity. The CRA has not published a list of the 60 charities it has identified for auditing. However, some of the groups that said they were audited were critical of government policy. The CRA has rejected suggestions the selection was politically motivated.

Tory-linked charity behind monument declared it was not active politically – The Globe and Mail.

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