Canada hires rookie groups to lead Ukraine election observers

While not clear why the Government chose inexperienced organizations to lead Canada’s team of observers to Ukrainian elections compared to Canadem (public service advice was clear), the size of the delegation reflects diaspora politics. Understandable that governments want more visibility than contributions to international organizations, but still questionable:

Canada’s assignment of such large numbers of bilateral observers — the Liberals did it first in 2004, and the Conservatives have followed suit — has continued despite internal warnings.

One such warning came from Bob Johnston, a regional director general with the former Canadian International Development Agency, in a January 2012 memo.

Johnston recommended Canada channel its election observation efforts through the internationally recognized leader in the field, the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe, or OSCE.

However, Johnston noted the government may want to send in short-term bilateral observers “to demonstrate Canada’s commitment to Ukraine’s democratic development” — a message that Prime Minister Stephen Harper and his cabinet have repeatedly emphasized.

“If this option is selected, Canadem would again be the only possible partner,” Johnston wrote.

Johnston’s boss, then CIDA president, Margaret Biggs, agreed.

“Canadem, a Canadian NGO with a long track record of recruiting, training, and deploying election observers, is the proposed implementing organization,” Biggs wrote in a July 2012 memo. CIDA has since been merged into Foreign Affairs….

Veteran Canadian election observers, who have served on numerous international missions, criticized the government for sending such large numbers of bilateral observers when no other country does so. They agreed to speak on the condition they not be identified because all are independent contractors who rely on international work for their livelihoods.

They say the government is sending large numbers of observers to win votes at home because there are an estimated 1.2 million people of Ukrainian descent in Canada.

“You’ve got the gold standard with the OSCE, and we’re sending the maximum contribution we can send anyway. On top of that, for domestic political reasons we’re sending another however-many-Canadians for no reason at all,” said one observer.

Canada hires rookie groups to lead Ukraine election observers.

Canadian Public Service Commission studies on Employment Equity designated groups

Courtesy of the Community of Federal Visible Minorities (CFVM), summary of the findings of recent studies on employment equity hiring. Main findings:

  • Men who are members of visible minorities have greater chances of promotion than their comparison group, and women who are members of visible minorities have fewer chances of promotion than their comparison group;
  • Men and women with disabilities have fewer chances of promotion than their respective comparison groups;
  • Aboriginal men and women have similar chances of promotion than their respective comparison groups; and
  • Women who do not belong to another EE group have similar chances of promotion to men who do not belong to other EE groups.

As to perceptions of fairness:

  • Men with disabilities and men who are members of visible minorities have less favourable perceptions than their respective comparison groups;
  • Aboriginal men have similar perceptions to their comparison group;
  • Women who are members of visible minorities have less favourable perceptions than their comparison group;
  • Aboriginal women and women with disabilities have similar perceptions to their respective comparison groups; and
  • Men who do not belong to an EE group have less favourable perceptions than women who do not belong to another EE group

For the complete reports:

Statistical Study – Members of EE Groups: Perceptions of Merit and Fairness in Staffing Activities

Statistical Study – Members of EE Groups: Chances of Promotion

Appointments to the Public Service by Employment Equity Designated Group for 2012-2013 – Statistical Update

1812: The War No One Wants to Commemorate (US View)

Funny to see how the war of 1812 is viewed by the American media, given the high profile by the Canadian Government ($28 million in funding). A war between the USA and Britain (no mention of Canada) and, in the US narrative, the US won:

So why the relative lack of enthusiasm about 1812? Maybe because the U.S. is now best friends with the aggressor, Great Britain. But that didn’t seem to generate any awkwardness during the Revolutionary War bicentennial, when Queen Elizabeth was happy to visit to join in the celebrations. More likely, say some historians, it’s simply a lack of awareness.

“This is an area of history that is so not well known by the broader American public,” says Karen Daly, executive director of Dumbarton House, an historic Washington property that is now a museum. “I find when people visit Dumbarton House, an incredible number of Americans don’t even know this event even happened. They tend to jump from the Revolutionary War to the Civil War. This area of history is glossed over in our schooling. And yet, this is what gave us our national anthem and it is very much the event that cemented the union and the democracy. It’s an incredible piece of our history.”

So come on America, have some pride for the 1812 War! We actually won this one.

I assume someone in the Conservative government will write a letter to Time!

1812: The War No One Wants to Commemorate | TIME.com.

The American Middle Class Is No Longer the World’s Richest

Understandably, the Government has claimed credit for Canada now having a higher middle class income than the US (any government would do the same, even though this is a 30-year trend involving many governments).

I recall during the 1990s the then Mulroney government had a “prosperity initiative” that included studies by Michael Porter who was then a major figure on theories and factors involved in growth (and has broadened his focus since then: see We’re Not No. 1! We’re Not No. 1! – Porter’s Social Competitiveness Report). At the time, one of the talking points was that Canada was a Honda Civic nation, the US was a Honda Accord. Times have changed.

And the most interesting part is the explanation, which has public policy implications:

Three broad factors appear to be driving much of the weak income performance in the United States. First, educational attainment in the United States has risen far more slowly than in much of the industrialized world over the last three decades, making it harder for the American economy to maintain its share of highly skilled, well-paying jobs.

Americans between the ages of 55 and 65 have literacy, numeracy and technology skills that are above average relative to 55- to 65-year-olds in rest of the industrialized world, according to a recent study by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, an international group. Younger Americans, though, are not keeping pace: Those between 16 and 24 rank near the bottom among rich countries, well behind their counterparts in Canada, Australia, Japan and Scandinavia and close to those in Italy and Spain.

A second factor is that companies in the United States economy distribute a smaller share of their bounty to the middle class and poor than similar companies elsewhere. Top executives make substantially more money in the United States than in other wealthy countries. The minimum wage is lower. Labor unions are weaker.

And because the total bounty produced by the American economy has not been growing substantially faster here in recent decades than in Canada or Western Europe, most American workers are left receiving meager raises.

American Incomes Are Losing Their Edge, Except at the TopInflation-adjusted, after-tax income over time

Finally, governments in Canada and Western Europe take more aggressive steps to raise the take-home pay of low- and middle-income households by redistributing income.

The American Middle Class Is No Longer the World’s Richest – NYTimes.com.

Why is Canada botching the Great War centenary? – Granatstein

Funny to see how the academics who support the overall thrust of the Government’s change of emphasis on Canada’s historical narrative, particularly the increased emphasis on the military, have started to realize the limitations of the Government’s commitment. Jack Granatstein’s commentary on the commemoration of WW1 and Canada’s role is valid and telling (for his critique of the Government’s cuts to Library and Archives Canada see Who will preserve the past for future generations?:

But the Great War years also changed the homeland. Women relatives of Canadian soldiers got the vote in 1917, and thousands of women left farms and hearths to work in munitions factories that produced a quarter of the artillery shells for British and Dominion forces by 1917. Prohibition cut off alcohol sales; millions were raised in Victory Loan campaigns; income tax came into effect (as a “temporary” wartime measure); and farmers and workers began to organize politically as inflation hit everyone. Above all, conscription in 1917 split the nation, pitting farmers against city dwellers, labour against bosses, French against English. That year’s election, won by the pro-conscription Unionist government of Sir Robert Borden, was the most racist in our history.

We certainly don’t want to celebrate all of these wartime events and changes, but we need to talk about them and learn from them. We need TV documentaries on the war and its battles and on the events, positive and negative, on the home front. We need books, conferences, lectures and displays in our national and local museums. We need to remember.

This requires some modest new funding. There will be a surplus by 2015, and there will be money available – if the government wishes to use it. There will also be the money to ensure that veterans get the help they require. It’s not a zero-sum game.

We really must remember the Great War properly. It was when Canada stood proudly on the world stage for the first time, and it would be a disgrace for the government to shortchange it.

Why is Canada botching the Great War centenary? – The Globe and Mail.

Moderate Islam meets Auschwitz | +972 Magazine

Interesting piece on Mohammed Dajani Daoudi, a Palestinian academic who came under considerable controversy for his taking a group of Palestinian students to Auschwitz and whose partnership with Ben Gurion University includes exposing Israeli students to the nakba or catastrophe.

His thoughts on the narratives and identity are pertinent and interesting:

Among Palestinians, his advocacy of Holocaust education for Palestinians is deeply fraught. It is pointless to dismiss this as stalwart Arab anti-Semitism. Jews and Jewish Israelis, too, are almost totally incapable of considering the Palestinian Nakba, because they fear it is primarily a justification for right of return. Similarly, Palestinians encounter the Holocaust first and foremost as the justification for their modern-day oppression – and only secondarily as a matter of history and human suffering….

Indeed, between the evolving bear-hug of Israel-conservative circles and the anger he is causing among many Palestinians, his influence is unpredictable. Dajani’s language has a naivete that is out of fashion in the post-second Intifada, post nth negotiation-breakdown environment: he talks of building bridges instead of walls, and praises the Oslo accords as a psychological breakthrough. He blithely supports two states, because both societies need national and identity realization, he says, as if realities on the ground have not changed over the last 20 years.

Moderate Islam meets Auschwitz | +972 Magazine.

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

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.

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

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

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

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.

In conversation with exiled Conservative Tom Flanagan

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.