Decision-Making: Refugee claim acceptance in Canada appears to be ‘luck of the draw’ despite reforms, analysis shows

2014/04/17 Leave a comment

Interesting from a decision-making perspective.

Reading this reminded me of some of Daniel Kahneman’s similar work where he showed considerable variability in decision-making, even depending on the time of day. A reminder of the difficulty of ensuring consistent decision-making, given that people are people, automatic thinking, reflecting our experiences and perceptions, is often as important as more deliberative thinking. No easy solutions but regular analysis of decisions and feedback may help:

There are legitimate reasons why decisions by some adjudicators lean in one direction, such as adjudicators specializing in claimants from a certain region. (Someone hearing cases from Syria will have a higher acceptance rate than someone hearing claims from France.) Some members hear more expedited cases, which are typically urgent claims with specific aggravating or mitigating facts.

“My view is that even when you try to control for those sorts of differences, a very large difference in acceptance rates still exists,” said Mr. Rehaag. “You get into the more idiosyncratic elements of individual identity.”

These may reflect the politics of the adjudicator or impressions about a country. If adjudicators have been on a relaxing holiday in a country they may be less likely to accept a claimant faces horrors there.

Refugee claim acceptance in Canada appears to be ‘luck of the draw’ despite reforms, analysis shows | National Post.

Filed under Government, Public Policy Tagged with , ,

Separatism was dealt a blow, but don’t think it was knocked out – The Globe and Mail

2014/04/14 Leave a comment

Good thoughtful commentary and advice by André Pratte of La Presse (but in the Globe):

That’s where the duty of the rest of Canada, the federal government and Quebec federalists begins. First and foremost, we should resist the temptation to put up the “Mission Accomplished” banner. Second, we have to get French-speaking Quebeckers more involved in national institutions, beginning with the Government of Canada. It is not good for either the province or the country that Quebec is so weakly represented in the federal cabinet as it has been in recent times. And finally, we need to constantly and intelligently promote federalism, so that Quebeckers not only reject independence but embrace the Canadian work-in-progress.

Separatism may not be a threat in the near future. But beware of the sleeping dragon. And in the meantime, we should be careful about the mutual indifference that has come to characterize the relationship between Quebec and the Rest of Canada. That indifference could surreptitiously lead to a de facto separation.

Separatism was dealt a blow, but don’t think it was knocked out – The Globe and Mail.

Don Macpherson of the Gazette reminds us of the risks of raising expectations and constitutional negotiations (Don Macpherson: Only federalists can awaken the sovereignty movement). ButDaniel Weinstock wants to reopen constitutional discussions, as they end up being more polarizing:

If on the other hand, political leaders in the ROC interpret this election (and perhaps also the last federal election, that saw the Quebec electorate reject the Bloc Québécois en masse for a federalist party) as giving rise to an historical opportunity, a main tendue inviting them to complete Canada’s coming to full self-consciousness as a multinational federation united by the political will to affirm the individual rights of all Canadians and the legitimate aspirations to self-determinations of all of its constituent polities (Quebec, to be sure, but also the First Nations with whom we share our land), then, perhaps, the right answer to the question with which I began this post is that the 2014 election will come to be seen as the moment at which the sovereignist movement died.

Now, I concede that there is not much political hay to be made for any party at this historical juncture in Canada in adopting, and in acting on, the latter interpretation. Some political leaders in the ROC are just as depressingly prone as are some of the political leaders in Quebec to give a great deal of weight in their political decision-making to the short-term electoral costs of standing up for minority rights. The mark of the true statesperson is however to look beyond the next election, (I think Kant said that) even if in doing so he or she is looked upon askance by voters.

The Ball is in ROC’s Court | In Due Course.

Conrad Black is equally wanting to stir things up:

Quebec is ready to deal

Filed under Government, Multiculturalism Tagged with ,

Will the Fair Elections Act Hurt New Canadians? – New Canadian Media – NCM

2014/04/11 Leave a comment

Further to the general controversy about Bill C-23, the “Fair Elections Act, the perspective from some of the settlement and related agencies with respect to new Canadians and the removal of vouching or equivalent:

Canadian immigrant service providers are worried that the Conservative government’s proposed election bill will potentially impact the voter participation rate of new Canadians and ethnocultural communities in future elections. Currently, citizens who don’t have proper identification can vote if someone else can vouch for their identity. If the new bill passes, vouching would be banned – a problem for new Canadians who want to vote but may lack proper identification simply because they’re new to the system.

“We know that many folks who tend not to be on the voters list and/or have ID that is deemed to be appropriate are folks who are low income or new to the system,” said Debbie Douglas, executive director of Ontario Council of Agencies Serving Immigrants (OCASI), based in Toronto, whose member agencies provide a variety of services for new Canadians, including professional development services, tools to help newcomers learn about Canadian citizenship, and language services. “The fact that they will be showing up to vote and not find their name on the list or have a voter’s card and not have appropriate ID will absolutely disenfranchise them,” she argued.

“Folks tend to vote for those that have their interests at heart and if a large number of new Canadians are disenfranchised or aren’t able to participate, than their interests aren’t able to be represented politically,” she added.

Nothing new compared to the general critique that removal of vouching will disenfranchise some voters that do not have drivers licenses (the one piece of government ID that has both name and address) or who move around more frequently (e.g., students). Not sure how high the number of new Canadians without drivers licenses or other accepted documents (e.g., property tax and utility bills), and likely not an issue for most, but as all the electoral and other experts who have testified, this mocks the government’s commitment to the democratic process.

One last thing. The Minister responsible, Pierre Poilievre, noted how much he tried to follow the Jason Kenney approach to legislation (The Kenney-Poilievre Doctrine – Macleans.ca). He seems to have forgotten a few aspects:

  • Don’t repeat ad nauseam talking points that have either been proven false or do not answer the question or issue. Make the points your own and answer the question;
  • Know when to be flexible and back down (Minister Kenney changed the policy on historical recognition and the Canada Jobs Grant in order to satisfy stakeholders and the provinces respectively); and,
  • Be careful who you attack and how (never a good idea to attack Sheila Fraser, former auditor general, given the public will believe her more than anyone in the government).

For a good general critique of how the Government and Minister is handling the bill, see Andrew Coyne’s Very little ‘fair’ about how Conservatives are pushing controversial Elections Act.

Will the Fair Elections Act Hurt New Canadians? – New Canadian Media – NCM.

Filed under Government Tagged with ,

In conversation with exiled Conservative Tom Flanagan

2014/04/11 Leave a comment

Good balanced and reflective interview with Tom Flanagan, former Conservative strategist and thinker, by Paul Wells. While the bulk of the interview is about his controversial remarks about child pornography, worth reading for his general observations on communications and politics. And his quote on Harper is remarkably balanced for someone that Harper cut loose so ruthlessly:

Q: Your book also airs other criticisms of the Conservative party and of the Prime Minister. The falling out between you and Stephen Harper seems to be pretty complete. At one point, you write, “There’s a dark, almost Nixonian, side to the man. He can be suspicious, secretive and vindictive, prone to sudden eruptions of white-hot rage over meaningless trivia, at other times falling into week-long depressions in which he’s incapable of making decisions.” Is that the sort of thing that would disqualify a guy from being prime minister?

A: No, I don’t think so. I tried to be clear that this is one side of a complex person, and he also has many wonderful attributes and I feel proud that he asked me to work for him. I believe I helped him get where he is today. I think he’s obviously intelligent and dedicated and focused and honest; I can’t see him ever taking a bribe, for example. He doesn’t care about money. I worked closely with Stephen for many years and it took a number of years before I started to see the whole picture. At first, I was drawn by the sterling qualities and it was only over time that I started to see this other side. But I do think the tragedy of Harper is that this darker side is undermining what he has achieved, and would like to achieve further. So often now, the issue is about something that comes from this personal side, some kind of judgment that he has made about people that has backfired, or the way he has treated a person, so the focus is now so often being taken off the policy objectives. He’s got some achievements recently that he should be proud of, such as the free trade agreement with the common market and South Korea; being close to balancing the budget. But what are people talking about? Too often they’re talking about Nigel Wright, Mike Duffy, now Dimitri Soudas. So that’s what I see as tragic in the dramatic sense: that he has this difficult side which is now undermining the more positive and creative side.

In conversation with exiled Conservative Tom Flanagan.

Filed under Government Tagged with ,

Requiem pour le projet de pays, Trudeau’s legacy

2014/04/10 Leave a comment

The deep kind of reflection that is needed by the PQ following their implosion Monday, from such independentistes like Gérard Bouchard, Louise Beaudoin, Jean Dorion etc:

Un « cul-de-sac ». Une « impasse ». Un tournant « inquiétant pour l’avenir ». Tel est le verdict formulé par le sociologue et historien Gérard Bouchard, qui multiplie les métaphores alarmistes pour décrire la situation dans laquelle le Parti québécois s’est lui-même empêtré. « Pour moi, qui ai toujours été un souverainiste et un péquiste, la première impression c’est que le PQ va devoir se reconstruire, et en profondeur, a-t-il confié au Devoir. Le problème, c’est de savoir comment. Il devient de plus en plus clair que son article premier, que cette option sur la souveraineté, a du plomb dans l’aile et pour un bout de temps. »

À moins d’un revirement majeur, avertit cet architecte des pratiques d’accommodements culturels et penseur de l’identité québécoise, le Parti québécois pourrait bien avoir joué son rôle historique, et être bientôt remplacé par la Coalition avenir Québec (CAQ).

Celui qui a dirigé avec le philosophe Charles Taylor la Commission sur les accommodements raisonnables (2007-2008) estime que l’article 1 du programme péquiste voue, à terme, ce parti à l’impasse. « Je ne vois pas comment ce parti pourrait abolir cet article, tout en demeurant le PQ. Comment pourrait-il se reconstituer et redevenir le parti qu’il était, c’est-à-dire un parti dominant, en tablant sur cette plateforme-là ? Donc, on semble dans un cul-de-sac. »

Quite a contrast to the denial of Drainville, Lisée, Peladeau.

Requiem pour le projet de pays | Le Devoir.

Good piece by Andrew Cohen, with appropriate nuance on the meaning of the Quebec election results:

The longer view, shared by Trudeau and others, was that time would change things. That Canada is a post-modern exemplar of accommodation and generosity, however imperfect and unfinished, and Quebecers would come to see it that way. That, with growing self-confidence, they would think less of “demands” and more of dividends.

But there should be no triumphalism in English Canada today. We should not think independence is dead and that we have finally put Quebec “in its place” — unless, as Trudeau used to say, its place is in Canada.

Instead, we should respect the decency, sensibility and practicality of Quebecers who may not love Canada and, psychologically, have already left it. At the same time, we should recognize that Quebec has come to terms with Canada, at least for now, and we will carry on, together, in our uneasy peace. This is the reality of our society.

Column: Pierre Trudeau was right about Quebec.

Filed under Government Tagged with , , ,

How politics makes us stupid – Vox

2014/04/09 Leave a comment

Interesting research on how we make decisions based on our pre-conceptions and our group identity/ideology:

[Yale Law professor Dan] Kahan doesn’t find it strange that we react to threatening information by mobilizing our intellectual artillery to destroy it. He thinks it’s strange that we would expect rational people to do anything else. “Nothing any ordinary member of the public personally believes about the existence, causes, or likely consequences of global warming will affect the risk that climate changes poses to her, or to anyone or anything she cares about,” Kahan writes. “However, if she forms the wrong position on climate change relative to the one that people with whom she has a close affinity — and on whose high regard and support she depends on in myriad ways in her daily life — she could suffer extremely unpleasant consequences, from shunning to the loss of employment.”

Kahan’s research tells us we can’t trust our own reason. How do we reason our way out of that?

Kahan calls this theory Identity-Protective Cognition: “As a way of avoiding dissonance and estrangement from valued groups, individuals subconsciously resist factual information that threatens their defining values.” Elsewhere, he puts it even more pithily: “What we believe about the facts,” he writes, “tells us who we are.” And the most important psychological imperative most of us have in a given day is protecting our idea of who we are, and our relationships with the people we trust and love.

How politics makes us stupid – Vox.

Filed under Government, Public Policy Tagged with , ,

Quebec Election Editorial Endorsements

2014/04/07 Leave a comment

Starting with a somewhat tortured editorial by Le Devoir favouring the PQ:

Cette campagne fut difficile pour la première ministre Marois, qui a commis des erreurs dont elle devra tirer des leçons. La réaction des électeurs sur l’enjeu référendaire ne peut être ignorée, tout comme sur la charte sur la laïcité. Sur ce plan, elle a payé pour sa décision de défendre de façon absolutiste ce projet sans écouter ce que pensaient les Québécois, y compris les membres de son parti.

Il est bien possible, si le Parti québécois est réélu, qu’il soit à nouveau minoritaire. La première ministre devra accepter cette situation et gouverner avec les autres partis en recherchant les consensus. Il y a des erreurs à ne pas répéter. Elle nous a dit en campagne que si elle était déterminée, elle savait par ailleurs écouter. Prenons cela comme un engagement.

Le choix du Devoir

André Pratte’s editorial in La Presse favour of the Parti liberal de Québec, citing three reasons: pour un Québec prospère, pour un Québec stable and pour un Québec accueillant

Trois raisons de voter libéral : économie – référendum – Charte | André Pratte.

The Montreal Gazette predictably endorses the Liberals:

A PQ government would continue to play the politics of division that it has pushed while in office, and in this campaign, by proceeding with its discriminatory values charter and repressive language legislation. And, if granted a majority, it would surely try to pick fights with Ottawa to manufacture “winning conditions” for another referendum. All this would be to the further detriment of a sagging provincial economy and fragile social fabric.

That reviving this economy would be the principal focus of a Liberal government, a government also dedicated to harmonious interculturalism and the playing of a constructive role in the Canadian federation, makes the election of a majority Liberal government the optimal outcome of Monday’s election.

Editorial: The Couillard Liberals deserve to govern

Filed under Government, Multiculturalism Tagged with , ,

We’re Not No. 1! We’re Not No. 1! – Porter’s Social Competitiveness Report

2014/04/05 2 Comments

Interesting, and a reminder that GDP, while important, is one indicator among many. I remember Porter’s earlier work which was very influential in the 80s and 90s. Canada scored 7th, the highest among G7 countries:

The Social Progress Index is a brainchild of Michael E. Porter, the eminent Harvard business professor who earlier helped develop the Global Competitiveness Report. Porter is a Republican whose work, until now, has focused on economic metrics.

“This is kind of a journey for me,” Porter told me. He said that he became increasingly aware that social factors support economic growth: tax policy and regulations affect economic prospects, but so do schooling, health and a society’s inclusiveness.

So Porter and a team of experts spent two years developing this index, based on a vast amount of data reflecting suicide, property rights, school attendance, attitudes toward immigrants and minorities, opportunity for women, religious freedom, nutrition, electrification and much more.

We’re Not No. 1! We’re Not No. 1! – NYTimes.com.

Filed under Government, Public Policy Tagged with , ,

Paul Wells: ‘Each of us writes the story of Canada every day’ – Macleans.ca

2014/04/04 Leave a comment

Nice acceptance speech by Paul Wells upon winning the Shaughnessy Cohen prize for best political book, The Longer I’m Prime Minister:

We need, in other words, to be ourselves. Each of us. Confidently and without apology. This is what Stephen Harper has been doing all along, and years later he was worth writing a book about.

I worry, though, about too many people who seek to serve him. A few years ago the National Post interviewed young political staffers in Ottawa and asked them where they like to get a coffee. Without exception, every young Conservative staffer said, “Tim Horton’s.” I get the allusion, of course. This is a Tim Horton’s government, it cares about the little guy, yadda yadda. But you know, there are a lot of places to get coffee. You can make it at home. You can go to McDonald’s. You can brew up a pot in the office. You’re not actually required to lobotomize yourself as soon as you turn off the Queensway and head to the Hill for the first time. And again and again, this government has wound up in trouble when some staffer blindly followed the branding instead of using the brain he presumably believes God gave him.

And the funny thing is, if Stephen Harper was 25 and working on the Hill today, he sure as hell would not have cheerfully told the National Post he takes his coffee where the boss told him he should.

Paul Wells: ‘Each of us writes the story of Canada every day’ – Macleans.ca.

Filed under Government Tagged with ,

Donald Savoie: Why Canada’s public service is declining and why it matters

2014/04/04 Leave a comment

Good short interview with Donald Savoie:

Show me a weak country and I will show you a country with a weak public service. Every country needs a referee and the referee has to be the public service. No country can operate without a referee. You take the public service out of Canadian society and you will have chaos. We all need to recognize the public service is going through an extremely difficult period. There are three fundamental phases to the public service. The first one was when they put the infrastructure in place in the early days, canals, roads, railways. The second was post-world-war Keynesian economics – the government decided it could do everything in every sector. It grew by leaps and bounds, young university graduates flocked to it. It was the happy phase. We are now into the third phase, saying ‘oh, we overshot.’ We got government into things that government ought not to have been into. So how do we fix things?

Donald Savoie: Why Canada’s public service is declining and why it matters – The Globe and Mail.

Filed under Government, Public Policy Tagged with ,

← Older posts

Newer posts →