Haute fonction publique fédérale – Après le silence, la révolte | Le Devoir

More on Library and Archives Canada (LAC) and its former head, Daniel Caron. Part of his problem was that the savage cuts to traditional archival activities, done to meet government expenditure reductions and generate savings to capture the digital records or contemporary events, never had a public constituency. Meanwhile, the LAC constituency of academics, librarians and archivists strongly protested about the loss of traditional archive activities (see Jack Granatstein’s excellent Who will preserve the past for future generations?).

M. Caron dit avoir été injustement cloué au pilori, sans l’appui du ministre du Patrimoine, James Moore, ni même de BAC, où les réformes liées à la numérisation du présent qu’il était en train de mener créaient beaucoup de remous, admet-il. « Les changements étaient importants et ne plaisaient pas à tout le monde, dit-il. Il y a des gens qui avaient un intérêt à me voir partir. Quant au ministre, il avait, lui, un intérêt à se faire du capital politique en tapant publiquement sur un fonctionnaire pour des allégations de mauvaises gestions de fonds publics. Cela est cohérent avec le discours sur la réduction des dépenses ». Et il ajoute : « J’ai également résisté sur des projets d’acquisition de documents liés à la guerre de 1812 [un dossier historique hautement controversé et alimenté par les conservateurs], et poussé pour documenter des mouvements comme Idle No more [mouvement d’affirmation des autochtones et de contestation ciblant l’administration Harper] ou des projets comme Keystone XL [oléoduc canado-américain]. Cela n’a pas été très bien perçu. J’étais au milieu d’un tir croisé, dans une impasse. Je n’avais pas d’autres choix que de me retirer ».

Haute fonction publique fédérale – Après le silence, la révolte | Le Devoir.

John Ivison: Ottawa will lose top human rights crusader when Liberal MP who fought for Mandela retires

Nice tribute to Irwin Cotler by John Ivison:

Yet Mr. Cotler has emerged intact and unspoiled by his 15 years in the House of Commons.

In the Tim Hortons in Mount Royal, he confided his motivation – the fundamental teaching handed down by his father, who used to tell him in Hebrew: “Justice, justice shall you pursue. This is the equal of all the other commandments combined.”

His father would surely be proud of the use to which his teaching has been put.

John Ivison: Ottawa will lose top human rights crusader when Liberal MP who fought for Mandela retires | National Post.

Former PBO Kevin Page says federal government should reveal plans for public service

Hard not to agree with Page on accountability and transparency grounds. I recall working on implementation of the Conservative government’s Accountability Act, and particularly the role of Deputy Ministers, and it is hard to square that with the refusal to release information on spending plans (PBO should not have to file ATIP requests to get this info):

Page said the big problem is that the government hasn’t revealed its spending plans, including the nature of the cuts and their impact on service levels. While at the PBO, Page waged a public battle with Privy Council Clerk Wayne Wouters and deputy ministers over their refusal to turn over information on the government’s spending plans.

The closure of veterans’ offices and libraries — and the resulting political backlash — is what happens when departments live under steady cuts and everyone has been kept in the dark about their impact.

“You can look more productive … but we don’t know for the most part whether service levels are being maintained or the same quality of service is maintained because we don’t get that information from the government. They won’t allow the public servants to release it,” said Page.

“I would think if you asked public servants working at those regional veterans offices … if they were maintaining the same quality of service, I am pretty sure they would say ‘ no, we’re not but we are better off fiscally because we’re taking people out. So productivity gets a bit of boost but if service goes down and outputs go down, Canadians aren’t getting the same quality of services, and in the long run we are not better off.”

Former PBO Kevin Page says federal government should reveal plans for public service.

Why we should listen to Elizabeth May – Paul Wells

Good commentary by Paul Wells on the shrinking role of government and the reduced capacity it implies:

In 2009, after the opposition forced him to run very large deficits as the price of Conservative political survival, Stephen Harper made a simple, crucial decision: He would eliminate the deficit over time, not by cutting transfers to the provinces for social programs, but by cutting direct spending on the things the government of Canada does. The government of Canada operates embassies, labs, libraries, lighthouses, benefits for veterans and Arctic research outposts. Or rather, it used to. These days, each day, it does a little less of all those things.

The sum of these cuts is a smaller role for the federal government in the life of the nation. Each of the steps toward that destination is trivial, easy to argue both ways (who needs fancy embassies?) and impossible to reverse (if a future government decides, “We need fancy embassies,” it can never get back the prime real estate this government is now selling).

In his long-delayed appearance before the cameras (sorry), Trudeau depicted the Harper government as devoid of ideas. “Its primary interest is the well-being of the Conservative Party of Canada and not of Canadians.” May, on the other hand, is sure the government has ideas; that it is pursuing them even when the rest of us are grandly bored with details; and that it is changing the country. She’s right.

This is not to say that period trimming of government is not needed – it is – but the stealth approach (i.e., the PBO should not have to submit ATIP requests for information on cuts), and limited public debate are worrisome.

Why we should listen to Elizabeth May – Inkless Wells, Opinion, Paul Wells – Macleans.ca.

Library cuts trigger fears of knowledge drain

More on government reductions and cuts in government libraries. While pruning and digitizing collections is good practice, some press accounts suggest a less thorough process (e.g., Fisheries and Oceans libraries), with resulting loss of accumulated knowledge. Cutbacks to Library and Archives Canada a number of years back also undermine the Government’s record on knowledge and history.

I was amused, however, by this comment on access to material stored offsite:

Citizenship and Immigration spokesperson Remi Lariviere confirmed that the department’s library materials “are housed off-site with a private sector provider” in Laval, Que. He said the closure of the department library saves taxpayers about $200,000 a year and rejected suggestions that they are inaccessible to researchers.

Lariviere said there are “clear service standards for retrieval” and that most Citizenship and Immigration employees the predominant users of the department’s materials access documents online.

Given my experience with ATIP (where CIC fails to meet statutory requirements), or the lack of service standards for most citizenship and immigration dealings with the public, I must say I am somewhat sceptical. And the money saved for most departments is small change.

Library cuts trigger fears of knowledge drain.

PM Harper on Antisemitism at the Knesset

Full text in link below, section on antisemitism is stronger restatement than in Minister Kenney’s pre-visit interview (Canada has “moral obligation” to support Israel, stop anti-Semitism: Jason Kenney):

And in the garden of such moral relativism, the seeds of much more sinister notions can be easily planted.

“And so we have witnessed, in recent years, the mutation of the old disease of anti-Semitism and the emergence of a new strain.

We all know about the old anti-Semitism.

It was crude and ignorant, and it led to the horrors of the death camps.

Of course, in many dark corners, it is still with us.

But, in much of the Western world, the old hatred has been translated into more sophisticated language for use in polite society.

People who would never say they hate and blame the Jews for their own failings or the problems of the world, instead declare their hatred of Israel and blame the only Jewish state for the problems of the Middle East.

As once Jewish businesses were boycotted, some civil-society leaders today call for a boycott of Israel.

On some campuses, intellectualized arguments against Israeli policies thinly mask the underlying realities, such as the shunning of Israeli academics and the harassment of Jewish students.

Most disgracefully of all, some openly call Israel an apartheid state.

Think about that.

Think about the twisted logic and outright malice behind that: a state, based on freedom, democracy and the rule of law, that was founded so Jews can flourish, as Jews, and seek shelter from the shadow of the worst racist experiment in history, that is condemned, and that condemnation is masked in the language of anti-racism.

It is nothing short of sickening.

But this is the face of the new anti-Semitism.

It targets the Jewish people by targeting Israel and attempts to make  the old bigotry acceptable for a new generation.

Of course, criticism of Israeli government policy is not in and of itself necessarily anti-Semitic.

But what else can we call criticism that selectively condemns only the Jewish state and effectively denies its right to defend itself while systematically ignoring – or excusing – the violence and oppression all around it?

What else can we call it when, Israel is routinely targeted at the United Nations, and when Israel remains the only country to be the subject of a permanent agenda item at the regular sessions of its human rights council?

Read the full text of Harper’s historic speech to Israel’s Knesset – The Globe and Mail.

Sanctions Eased, Iran Gets Feelers From Old Trading Partners – NYTimes.com

Further to my piece in the Globe If Iran opens for business, Canada will need a new approach – and fast, a reminder that with the interim deal being implemented, business communities of other countries are starting to position themselves should the deal hold and continue to next stages. Of course, chances of medium-term success are small, given that the hard issues remain to be addressed (see the solid analysis in The Economist Some supporters of the Iran deal doubt there will be a long-term pact):

Many multinationals have long eyed what they view as the virgin Iranian market, where many highly educated consumers are thirsty for jobs and Western products. Iran’s infrastructure, including that of its oil industry, needs a complete overhaul.

“We need over $200 billion investment in our oil and gas sector alone,” said Saeed Laylaz, an economist close to Mr. Rouhani’s government. Iran needs multibillion-dollar injections in its heavy industries, its transportation sector and airlines, he said. “On top of that, we need to acquire new management skills and services. Basically, we need everything the other emerging nations needed a decade ago.”

Sanctions Eased, Iran Gets Feelers From Old Trading Partners – NYTimes.com.

Pellerin and Robson: Stephen Harper vs. Canada’s intellectuals | National Post

A good insight into conservative thinking on intellectuals, but rather than looking at the substantive policy issues and the evidence vs anecdote debate, Pellerin and Robson take a more shallow approach, focusing more on the personalities and perceptions.

It would have been more interesting if they had articulated the conservative rationale (as the government largely did not) for specific policy decisions and choices. Some policy decisions have managed to secure the opposition of intellectuals across the political spectrum decisions (e.g., cancellation of the census, weakening of science capacity and institutions like the Archives and research libraries). While they are right that most public intellectuals are more on the centre to left side of the spectrum, there has also been the welcome growth of conservative intellectuals and capacity, making for a more lively debate.

As Pellerin and Robson note, in a comment that could also apply to them:

There is an obvious and sometimes painful dislike of Stephen Harper’s brand of politics among intellectuals in this country. It is of course their right to feel this way and express their views however they choose. Indeed, we find some of those criticisms legitimate in some instances. But if intellectuals want to be taken seriously in their denunciation of the prime minister’s decisions and behavior, they ought to focus on ideas more and emotions less.

Pellerin & Robson: Stephen Harper vs. Canada’s intellectuals | National Post.

Kevin Page dismisses Privy Council’s Blueprint 2020 as ‘empty vessel’, other commentary

Hard to disagree with these comments by Kevin Page, former Parliamentary Budget Officer and currently attached to University of Ottawa, and Donald Savoie of Université de Moncton:

“I don’t see a vision and I have been very critical of the Blueprint 2020, but there is a context for change,” said Page.

“Where is the state of policy and financial analysis in government and its capacity to deliver services? We should be true to our values and no one can say we have been true to accountability and transparency in the past five years, moving on big initiatives with no supporting analysis.

“The public service is accountable to the executive but it is also accountable to Parliament and they have dropped the ball on that, and that comes with the price of lost public trust.”

Donald Savoie, the Canada Research chair in administration and governance at the Universite de Moncton, is also pushing for reform but argues the problem lies with the public service’s relationship with ministers, cabinet and Parliament….

He said all the chatter and discussions generated by Blueprint 2020 may be invigorating, especially for young public servants eager to harness technology and open up government, but it won’t work unless that relationship with politicians changes.

“I can’t figure out Blueprint 2020. It’s like grabbing smoke. I don’t understand where it is going. Maybe something fundamental or important is taking shape in the system and if that’s the case, good luck, but for someone from the outside looking in, there’s nothing there. It seems vapid … and until you deal with the role of ministers, Parliament and their relationship with public servants … the vision is only sentences in a report and will not have any legs.”

Kevin Page dismisses Privy Council’s Blueprint 2020 as ‘empty vessel’.

And the official government and bureaucratic view, predictably more rose-coloured:

Public servants waiting to see which vision for the bureaucracy will prevail in 2014

Lawrence Martin in the Globe takes a similarly hard-hitting approach, highlighting the relationship issue between the government and the public service. He goes too far in asserting the independence of the public service, given its role to serve the government of the day. Codifying a “moral contract” as suggested by Ralph Heintzman beyond the general understanding of “fearless advice and loyal implementation” is unlikely to happen, and would likely be too rigid. As always, finding the right balance is a challenge:

In the face of all the problems, top bureaucrat Wayne Wouters, Clerk of the Privy Council, has unveiled Blueprint 2020, a vision for a reformed world-class public service. Many such reform and modernization schemes have been tried in the past with scant results. This one, which follows a commendable consultation process within the service, is full of fine-sounding stuff like citizen engagement, smart use of new technologies and a whole-of-government approach to improve service delivery and value for money…

But not much in Mr. Wouters’s plan appears aimed at restoring the degree of independence the public service has traditionally exercised. Its politicization, a most serious example being that of the Privy Council Office, must be stopped. The public service should be accountable not only to the executive branch but also to Parliament. On the latter, says Mr. Page, it has dropped the ball, at the price of a loss in public trust.

Meaningful reform would entail something like what’s been proposed by former Treasury Board executive Ralph Heintzman. What is needed, he says, is a “moral contract,” a charter that sets well-defined boundaries between ministers, public servants and Parliament.

 Time to renew Canada’s cowed, bloated bureaucracy 

In fairness to all, the challenge in any such PS renewal initiative is high, there are no formal evaluations of previous efforts at PS renewal that I am aware (some informal reflections, however),  the fundamental limits of what can be done given bureaucratic and political heirarchies (government works top down, not bottom up), not to mention the particular context of the current government-public service relations.

Shopping for Votes by Susan Delacourt

Shopping for Votes provides a good overview of how politics has become more sophisticated in marketing approaches, and how this sophistication has increased over time. Some observations:

  • A large part of her thesis concerns the shift from viewing voters as citizens to viewing them as consumers, and the implications this has for policy (more “what’s in it for me” than what was viewed to be in the national interest, e.g., Mulroney govt initiatives like the FTA or GST). In one sense, this intrinsically plays into a more conservative agenda, as consumer/taxpayers will prefer lower taxes and be more critical of government services. It is harder to develop equally sharp messaging on the value of government services than more money in people’s pockets.
  • Political parties are more sophisticated in their understanding of voters than is the public service, given their incredibly developed polling and social science understanding of what motivates people. This knowledge is centralized, as is party messaging, and further contributes to a reduced role for MPs given that the parties have more knowledge about voters than local MPs. As public service polling and other research spending has decreased, and is largely at the macro big picture level, political parties have a more granular and targeted understanding. Public service advice has to consider all Canadians; increasingly political parties are focused on their base and potential growth of their base.
  • Highly ironic that the Conservative Party, justifiably criticized for their rejection of social science and other evidence-based policy making, has the most sophisticated social policy, behavioural research and polling to further their electoral objectives. What is effectively used  in the pursuit of power, is often rejected  in the exercise of power.

Well worth reading.