Canadian Heritage changes vetting process for anti-racism funds after nixing contract

2023/02/15 Leave a comment

Of note. This should catch most of the problems and the inclusion of reviewing social media activities is unfortunately necessary with respect to all forms of hate, whether antisemitism, anti-Asian, anti-muslim etc:

Canadian Heritage has changed the way it vets funding requests for community and anti-racism projects after it cut ties with an organization that was accused of antisemitism.

The federal government terminated a contract with the Community Media Advocacy Centre in September after it granted the group more than $122,000for projects to help combat anti-racism.

Ottawa has since attempted to recoup the funds, but has been unsuccessful in getting the money back, said Mala Khanna, an associate deputy minister at Canadian Heritage.

“It would be possible for the minister to take legal action,” she told a House of Commons committee on Monday.

That option has not yet been pursued, she said.

The federal government’s relationship with the group ended a few days after media reported that a senior consultant had posted what federal ministers described as antisemitic content on Twitter. The ministry decided to review its vetting process and says a new procedure is now in place.

Those applying for money will now have to put into writing that they will not espouse hate or discriminate, Khanna said.

Unlike before, the minister will have the power to immediately terminate a contract if its terms are violated. And staff involved with doling out funding have received anti-racism and antisemitism training.

Under the new vetting process, the government will also review the social media accounts of the staff of organizations that apply for government funding, Khanna said.

“Racism, hate and discrimination would make you ineligible for government funding, and requiring applicants to attest upfront themselves that they or anyone that is associated with the project will not engage in hate,” Khanna said.

“I think those are important lessons that we’ve learned.”

Michael Levitt, president and CEO of the Friends of Simon Wiesenthal Centre, said staff at the Canadian Heritage department need rigorous training so they can better understand and identify antisemitism.

“While we appreciate that Canadian Heritage has implemented new processes to prevent organizations and individuals who espouse antisemitic and racist views from receiving government funding, this can only be effective under certain conditions,” Levitt said in a written statement Monday.

He said it’s imperative that staff remain committed to real and meaningful action so that someone who promotes antisemitic views “never receives another cent of Canadian taxpayer money.”

Members of Parliament for the Liberals, New Democrats and Bloc Québécois were critical of Canadian Heritage for its approval of the contract in the first place, and then its delay in cancelling it.

“The concerns are very legitimate, and the fact this antisemitism was funded by the government, by the taxpayers, I find unbelievable,” NDP MP Peter Julian said at the heritage committee on Monday.

“We can’t have a federal government that takes that long to respond to egregious cases of hate being disseminated, whether that’s online or any other venue.”

Liberal MP Anthony Housefather said he raised concerns with the department in mid-July regarding social media posts by Laith Marouf, a senior consultant with the Community Media Advocacy Centre. The organization had been awarded government money to build an anti-racism strategy for Canadian broadcasting.

One tweet read: “You know all those loud mouthed bags of human feces, a.k.a. the Jewish White Supremacists; when we liberate Palestine and they have to go back to where they come from, they will return to being low voiced bitches of thier (sic) Christian/Secular White Supremacist Masters.’’

Marouf and his lawyer Stephen Ellis could not be reached for comment. However, Ellis previously told The Canadian Press that Marouf harbours no animus toward the Jewish faith as a collective group. He drew a distinction between his client’s tweets about people he calls “Jewish white supremacists” and Jewish people in general.

The department didn’t receive the tweet until Aug. 2, Khanna said, and it wasn’t until Aug. 20 that they suspended the contract. On Sept. 23, the contract was officially terminated.

“We could have moved faster. I wish we moved faster,” Khanna said.

The Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs said it is still waiting for other departments to adopt the same policies and practices.

“This is larger than one program and one organization. It is a holistic, all-of-government commitment that must be undertaken,” its president and CEO, Shimon Fogel, said in a statement.

Khanna said other government departments that issue grants and contributions have expressed interest in the work Canadian Heritage has done over the last few months. She said she has met with two other departments to discuss what they learned.

“I’m confident that the measures we put into place will make a difference,” she said. “If we were in such a situation again, I believe we would be able to move more quickly. Within a matter of days.”

Source: Canadian Heritage changes vetting process for anti-racism funds after nixing contract

Filed under Antisemitism, Multiculturalism Tagged with , , , ,

Stanford: Humans aren’t widgets, and Canadian workers are not in ‘short supply’

2023/02/14 Leave a comment

Needed reminder and useful counterpart to the self-serving nature of many of those complaining about labour shortages:

Busy people often lament, “I wish there were more hours in the day!” They struggle to get all their tasks completed. An extra hour or two each day would surely ease the pressure.

While this frustration is understandable, no-one seriously believes our days are too short — nor that time pressures would be solved by stretching the day to 25 hours. Almost certainly, our to-do lists would just get longer, and we’d quickly face the same time crunch again.

This same flawed logic infects the chorus of complaints these days about a so-called ‘labour shortage.’ Employers moan they can’t find enough workers. They preferred it when unemployed workers abounded, and simple job ads could elicit dozens of applications.

Tiff Macklem, Governor of the Bank of Canada, also cites employers’ complaints as justification for painful interest rate hikes. He aims to ‘solve’ the labour shortage by deliberately raising unemployment.

The federal government, too, is catering to employers by increasing immigration targets to all-time highs. Properly planned and supported immigration is good for the economy and for society. But importing masses of workers just to make life easier for employers is the wrong way to do it (especially using exploitative temporary migrant programs).

At any rate, just increasing the number of people in the country doesn’t magically fix the labour market. Yes, there are more people to work, but now there is more work to do (since the population requiring housing and subsistence also grows). It’s like lengthening the day to 25 hours, while adding more tasks to your list.

Labour shortage narratives are also heard loudly in the social policy arena. For example, employers want Employment Insurance benefits cut, to compel unemployed workers to accept lower-paying jobs.https://d-14355908711088163416.ampproject.net/2301261900000/frame.html

Others want to postpone the retirement age, to pressure Canadians to work longer. This, too, is a false solution. Yes, Canada’s population is aging. But it’s wrong to assume this will translate into a crisis in labour supply. Strong labour force participation (including many over 65 who voluntarily keep working) is offsetting demographic trends, and keeping the labour force growing.https://amp.thestar.com/amp-ymbii.html?pos=1&path=/business/opinion/2023/02/11/humans-arent-widgets-and-canadian-workers-are-not-in-short-supply.html&sitename=thestar#amp=1

All these policies would make it harder for Canadians to find and keep good work — which should be our central economic goal. Pushing more workers into the labour market, while reducing job opportunities, will certainly make like easier for HR managers. But it will undermine life chances for most Canadians.

Statistics prove that Canada is not anywhere near ‘running out’ of workers. There are more than a million officially unemployed. Another million or more are underemployed, working short hours or in menial jobs that don’t fully utilize their abilities. And at least a million more potential workers (including hundreds of thousands of female parents, and hundreds of thousands of nonemployed who aren’t counted as officially ‘unemployed’) sit on the sidelines of the labour force.

Fully employing these Canadians would expand national output by 15 per cent. It would reduce poverty and exclusion. And it would allow us to undertake vital priorities: like strengthening health care, expanding green energy, and building affordable housing. Instead, the economy is being deliberately held back to maintain an ample buffer of idle workers, ready anytime employers need them.

To be sure, employing every available worker (and achieving genuine full employment) would require careful planning and supports. We’d need stronger vocational training pipelines to train and retrain workers, and connect them with relevant jobs. We’d need better child care, flexible hours, and public transit to support healthier work-life balance. And we’d need different ways of setting wages: through industry-wide negotiations that lift real wages steadily and sustainably (alongside productivity), rather than using unemployment as a weapon to keep wages in line.

Ultimately, the terminology of ‘labour shortage’ propagates an employer-centric vision. It portrays the economy as a machine — and human beings as just another input to that machine (like energy, raw materials, or widgets).

In fact, the economy is there to serve us, not the other way around. The economy is the place where we use our energy and skills to produce the goods and services we need for a good life. If workers are fully occupied, that means we’re doing a good job supporting ourselves.

We shouldn’t complain about that, or try to prevent it. We should celebrate it.

Source: Humans aren’t widgets, and Canadian workers are not in ‘short supply’

Filed under Immigration Tagged with ,

Mims: The AI Boom That Could Make Google and Microsoft Even More Powerful

2023/02/14 Leave a comment

Good long read. Hard to be optimistic about how the technology will be used. And the regulators will likely be more than a few steps behind corporations:

Seeing the new artificial intelligence-powered chatbots touted in dueling announcements this past week by Microsoft and Googledrives home two major takeaways. First, the feeling of “wow, this definitely could change everything.” And second, the realization that for chat-based search and related AI technologies to have an impact, we’re going to have to put a lot of faith in them and the companies they come from.

When AI is delivering answers, and not just information for us to base decisions on, we’re going to have to trust it much more deeply than we have before. This new generation of chat-based search engines are better described as “answer engines” that can, in a sense, “show their work” by giving links to the webpages they deliver and summarize. But for an answer engine to have real utility, we’re going to have to trust it enough, most of the time, that we accept those answers at face value.

The same will be true of tools that help generate text, spreadsheets, code, images and anything else we create on our devices—some version of which both Microsoft MSFT -0.20%decrease; red down pointing triangle and Google have promised to offer within their existing productivity services, Microsoft 365 and Google Workspace. 

These technologies, and chat-based search, are all based on the latest generation of “generative” AI, capable of creating verbal and visual content and not just processing it the way more established AI has done. And the added trust it will require is one of several ways in which this new generative AI technology is poised to shift even more power into the hands of the biggest tech companies. 

Generative AI in all its forms will insinuate technology more deeply into the way we live and work than it already is—not just answering our questions but writing our memos and speeches or even producing poetry and art. And because of the financial, intellectual and computational resources needed to develop and run the technology are so enormous, the companies that control these AI systems will be the largest, richest companies.

OpenAI, the creator of the ChatGPT chatbot and DALL-E 2 image generator AIs that have fueled much of the current hype, seemed like an exception to that: a relatively small startup that has driven major AI innovation. But it has leapt into the arms of Microsoft, which has made successive rounds of investment, in part because of the need to pay for the computing power needed to make its systems work. 

The greater concentration of power is all the more important because this technology is both incredibly powerful and inherently flawed: it has a tendency to confidently deliver incorrect information. This means that step one in making this technology mainstream is building it, and step two is minimizing the variety and number of mistakes it inevitably makes.

Trust in AI, in other words, will become the new moat that big technology companies will fight to defend. Lose the user’s trust often enough, and they might abandon your product. For example: In November, Meta made available to the public an AI chat-based search engine for scientific knowledge called Galactica. Perhaps it was in part the engine’s target audience—scientists—but the incorrect answers it sometimes offered inspired such withering criticism that Meta shut down public access to it after just three days, said Meta chief AI scientist Yann LeCun in a recent talk.

Galactica was “the output of a research project versus something intended for commercial use,” says a Meta spokeswoman. In a public statement, Joelle Pineau, managing director of fundamental AI research at Meta, wrote that “given the propensity of large language models such as Galactica to generate text that may appear authentic, but is inaccurate, and because it has moved beyond the research community, we chose to remove the demo from public availability.”

On the other hand, proving your AI more trustworthy could be a competitive advantage more powerful than being the biggest, best or fastest repository of answers. This seems to be Google’s bet, as the company has emphasized in recent announcements and a presentation on Wednesday that as it tests and rolls out its own chat-based and generative AI systems, it will strive for “Responsible AI,” as outlined in 2019 in its “AI Principles.”

My colleague Joanna Stern this past week provided a helpful description of what it’s like to use Microsoft’s Bing search engine and Edge web browser with ChatGPT incorporated. You can join a list to test the service—and Google says it will make its chatbot, named Bard, available at some point in the coming months.

But in the meantime, to see just why trust in these kinds of search engines is so tricky, you can visit other chat-based search engines that already exist. There’s You.com, which will answer your questions via a chatbot, or Andisearch.com, which will summarize any article it returns when you search for a topic on it.

Even these smaller services feel a little like magic. If you ask You.com’s chat module a question like “Please list the best chat AI-based search engines,” it can, under the right circumstances, give you a coherent and succinct answer that includes all the best-known startups in this space. But it can also, depending on small changes in how you phrase that question, add complete nonsense to its answer. 

In my experimentation, You.com would, more often than not, give a reasonably accurate answer, but then add to it the name of a search engine that doesn’t exist at all. Googling the made-up search engine names it threw in revealed that You.com seemed to be misconstruing the names of humans quoted in articles as the names of search engines.

Andi doesn’t return search results in a chat format, precisely because making sure that those answers are accurate is still so difficult, says Chief Executive Angela Hoover. “It’s been super exciting to see these big players validating that conversational search is the future, but nailing factual accuracy is hard to do,” she adds. As a result, for now, Andi offers search results in a conventional format, but offers to use AI to summarize any page it returns.

Andi currently has a team of fewer than 10 people, and has raised $2.5 million so far. It’s impressive what such a small team has accomplished, but it’s clear that making trustworthy AI will require enormous resources, probably on the scale of what companies like Microsoft and Google possess.

There are two reasons for this: The first is the enormous amount of computing infrastructure required, says Tinglong Dai, a professor of operations management at Johns Hopkins University who studies human-AI interaction. That means tens of thousands of computers in big technology companies’ current cloud infrastructures. Some of those computers are used to train the enormous “foundation” models that power generative AI systems. Others specialize in making the trained models available to users, which as the number of users grows can become a more taxing task than the original training.

The second reason, says Dr. Dai, is that it requires enormous human resources to continually test and tune these models, in order to make sure they’re not spouting an inordinate amount of nonsense or biased and offensive speech.

Google has said that it has called on every employee in the company to test its new chat-based search engine and flag any issues with the results it generates. Microsoft, which is already rolling out its chat-based search engine to the public on a limited basis, is doing that kind of testing in public. ChatGPT, on which Microsoft’s chat-based search engine is based, has already proved to be vulnerable to attempts to “jailbreak” it into producing inappropriate content. 

Big tech companies can probably overcome the issues arising from their rollout of AI—Google’s go-slow approach, ChatGPT’s sometimes-inaccurate results, and the incomplete or misleading answers chat-based Bing could offer—by experimenting with these systems on a large scale, as only they can.

“The only reason ChatGPT and other foundational models are so bad at bias and even fundamental facts is they are closed systems, and there is no opportunity for feedback,” says Dr. Dai. Big tech companies like Google have decades of practice at soliciting feedback to improve their algorithmically-generated results. Avenues for such feedback have, for example, long been a feature of both Google Search and Google Maps.

Dr. Dai says that one analogy for the future of trust in AI systems could be one of the least algorithmically-generated sites on the internet: Wikipedia. While the entirely human-written and human-edited encyclopedia isn’t as trustworthy as primary-source material, its users generally know that and find it useful anyway. Wikipedia shows that “social solutions” to problems like trust in the output of an algorithm—or trust in the output of human Wikipedia editors—are possible.

But the model of Wikipedia also shows that the kind of labor-intensive solutions for creating trustworthy AI—which companies like Meta and Google have already employed for years and at scale in their content moderation systems—are likely to entrench the power of existing big technology companies. Only they have not just the computing resources, but also the human resources, to deal with all the misleading, incomplete or biased information their AIs will be generating.

In other words, creating trust by moderating the content generated by AIs might not prove to be so different from creating trust by moderating the content generated by humans. And that is something the biggest technology companies have already shown is a difficult, time-consuming and resource-intensive task they can take on in a way that few other companies can.

The obvious and immediate utility of these new kinds of AIs, when integrated into a search engine or in their many other potential applications, is the reason for the current media, analyst and investor frenzy for AI. It’s clear that this could be a disruptive technology, resetting who is harvesting attention and where they’re directing it, threatening Google’s search monopoly and opening up new markets and new sources of revenue for Microsoft and others.

Based on the runaway success of the ChatGPT AI—perhaps the fastest service to reach 100 million users in history, according to a recent UBS report—it’s clear that being an aggressive first mover in this space could matter a great deal. It’s also clear that being a successful first-mover in this space will require the kinds of resources that only the biggest tech companies can muster.

Source: The AI Boom That Could Make Google and Microsoft Even More Powerful

Filed under Data, Other Tagged with , , , , ,

Wolfson and Castle: Ottawa’s new health funding is tied to better data. What will that really mean?

2023/02/14 Leave a comment

Good data discussion on outputs vs outcome measures, with the latter harder to measure but more important:

The federal government has just offered the provinces and territories substantial new funding to address the obvious failings in Canada’s health care sector. They have also rightly coupled reform with major improvements in health data collection, including the need for new and better indicators to measure progress. As Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has repeatedly said, “What gets measured gets done.”

But as with all data, the devil is in the details.

What exactly are health outcomes? Are they the same as health indicators? How will they be measured, and how can we ensure they are reported meaningfully and transparently for all Canadians? And most importantly: Will new health data meaningfully improve health care for Canadians?

In health care, for example, indicators can include the percentages of Canadians who have access to a family care team and the number of new family care practitioners; in fact, these are two of the indicators specified by the federal government. But while these are valuable, neither measures a health outcome. Instead, these indicators provide information on volume and accessibility for a key input in health care, namely primary care.

To the extent that these indicators can provide more detail – for example, by ethnicity or socioeconomic status, which should be essential lenses – they can shed light on important issues of equity and timeliness of health care. And as these indicators are tracked over time, they can provide a partial picture of whether health care is improving.

But health-outcome measures go beyond indicators, and require more detailed kinds of data.

A health outcome needs to consider a patient’s health status both before and after an intervention, such as a knee replacement or cataract surgery. It’s not just the waiting lists that matter; we also need to know how often a knee replacement has to be redone within a short period of time, or how frequently a cataract surgery fails to improve vision as much as anticipated.

Regularly measuring these kinds of health outcomes is fundamental to learning how well different parts of health care are performing, and whether we are receiving quality health care in the most cost-effective manner.

So how does this understanding of outcomes align with the federal government’s proposed “indicators” and data initiatives requirement? Short answer: we don’t know.

Provinces and territories have control over what health care data are routinely collected. For example, if we really want to know about health outcomes related to primary care, we first need to understand the various ways primary care is currently delivered – whether by solo fee-for-service doctors, or by teams, which include nurse practitioners as well as physicians who are remunerated by capitation, or some other model.

There is enough variety in primary care delivery across Canada that it should be possible to learn what works best by careful and probing comparisons across and within jurisdictions.

We then need to follow samples of individuals over time, to track which mode of primary care organization has patients with fewer illnesses, fewer hospitalizations and longer lives.

It is only with these kinds of longitudinal, person-level data that we’ll be able to produce evidence on which we can base valid indicators of health outcomes, and connect them to jurisdictions’ current and evolving ways of providing primary care to their residents.

Will the provinces collaborate, agree on standardized definitions and, with federal financial support, make the investments needed so these critical data become available? The federal government’s wording on this is ambiguous: “To access their share of the federal funding, including the guaranteed 5 per cent growth top-up payments to the CHT, for the next five years, provincial and territorial governments are asked to commit to improve how health information is collected, shared, used and reported to Canadians to promote greater transparency on results.”

Is this general statement merely cajoling, or is the federal government actually waving a serious fiscal stick? That will ultimately dictate the data outcome, because past decades of federal initiatives have repeatedly shown that if Ottawa fails to wield meaningful fiscal penalties, the momentum on serious health care reform is bound to face disappointment.

Michael Wolfson is a former assistant chief statistician at Statistics Canada and an adjunct professor in the faculties of medicine and law at the University of Ottawa. David Castle is professor of public administration at the University of Victoria. They both served on the Expert Advisory Group of the Pan-Canadian Health Data Strategy convened by the Public Health Agency of Canada.

Source: Ottawa’s new health funding is tied to better data. What will that really mean?

Filed under Government Tagged with , ,

Asylum seekers using well-organized system for crossing irregularly into Canada

2023/02/14 Leave a comment

Have to admire the entrepreneurial spirit of those helping irregular arrivals:

Moments after a Greyhound bus from New York City pulls into a gas station bus stop in Plattsburgh, N.Y., Friday at 5:25 a.m., several minivan taxis swarm the vehicle.

About a dozen passengers descend from the bus — mostly single men, but also several couples and a family with three young daughters. They are greeted by four pushy taxi drivers.

The drivers begin to shout: “Frontera!” — the Spanish word for border — “Roxham Road! 60 dollars! Come! Come!”

As the passengers unload luggage from under the bus, the taxi drivers are relentless, beckoning them into their cars for the 30-minute drive to Roxham Road, the wooded route into Canada that has become an unofficial border crossing for tens of thousands of asylum seekers over the past several years.

Most of the bus passengers approached by The Canadian Press refused to talk; some shielded their faces. Many weren’t dressed for winter: they wore T-shirts, thin jackets, sneakers. One couple, however, were prepared, wearing warm winter jackets, tuques, gloves and boots.

One single man hopped into a cab. Asked where he was from, he said, “Haiti.”

Anxiously waiting for the taxi to depart, the man said his bus ticket was “purchased by a friend.”

Last week, reports said officials from New York City were providing free bus tickets to migrants heading north to claim asylum in Canada. New York City Mayor Eric Adams told Fox 5 his administration helps in the “re-ticketing process” for people who arrive in the city but want to go elsewhere.

In December, a total of 4,689 migrants entered the country through Quebec’s Roxham Road — more than all would-be refugees who arrived in Canada in 2021. Crossing the irregular border allows them to take advantage of a loophole in a deal between the United States and Canada.

The Canada-U.S. Safe Third Country Agreement requires that asylum seekers make a refugee claim in the first “safe” country they reach. In practice, it means that border officials in Canada turn back would-be asylum seekers who show up at official checkpoints from the U.S. But they are not required to turn back asylum seekers who cross irregularly at places such as Roxham Road.

On average, about 100 migrants arrive daily at the Greyhound bus stop on their way to Roxham Road, according to Chad Provost, who runs his own shuttle service for migrants. On his business card is written “Roxham Road Border,” his WhatsApp number, and “24 hour service to and from the Canadian border. Asylum seekers and refugee safe transportation.”

Provost, standing at the bus station outside his minivan with three passengers inside, said he sometimes provides asylum seekers with free rides.

“A lot of them come from mess-up places. A lot of them just want a better life,” Provost said.

“There are some people I have driven for free. A lot of them don’t have any money. Some of these other drivers will just leave them here to freeze …. The gas station is closed at night.”

He says he doesn’t need to wrestle with the other taxi drivers to fill up his van — he gets his customers through word of mouth.

“My customers call me in advance to set up pickups from the bus stop to Roxham Road.”

For months, Quebec has been calling for the federal government — which controls Canada’s borders — to stop the flow or migrants, or at least ensure they are more equally distributed across the country after they arrive. The vast majority of people who enter irregularly into Canada cross into Quebec, putting a strain on the province’s social services.

The opposition Parti Québécois, meanwhile, has called for the provincial police to shut down Roxham Road entirely — but the party hasn’t said what it thinks should be done if asylum seekers choose another of the many forested routes into the country.

The province recently announced $3.5 million in aid for community organizations that have been struggling to provide food, clothing and housing for rising numbers of asylum seekers.

On Thursday evening, along the muddy trail leading up the border, a sign says “road closed.” A second sign a few metres away says, “Stop” in French. To the left, blue barrels act as pillars at the front of a makeshift entryway where asylum seekers line up and are met by RCMP agents.

One of those migrants is David Jesus Binto, 17, who arrived to Roxham Road in a taxi with another young man. Jesus Binto, wearing sneakers, jeans and an old-looking windbreaker over a T-shirt, says he and his friend are from Venezuela.

“We heard about (Roxham Road) through word of mouth. We left Venezuela for economic reasons,” he said in Spanish.

When asked if he had acquired the bus tickets for free, he replied that they had purchased the tickets themselves.

RCMP agents tell the migrants that if they cross the blue bins into Canada, they will be placed under arrest.

Jesus Binto, his friend and several others walk in single file toward the agents and into Canada.

Source: Asylum seekers using well-organized system for crossing irregularly into Canada

Filed under Immigration Tagged with ,

Lynch and Mitchell: Instead of adding new programs, Ottawa should focus on proper delivery of the ones it has

2023/02/14 Leave a comment

Likely a perennial refrain among officials having to respond to political-level demands but valid nevertheless as capacity limits of the public service in areas such as passports, immigration and others have become painfully apparent post-pandemic.

Of course, one of the ironies of former DMs and ADMs raising these issues is that the vast majority rose up through the policy ranks, helping governments introduce new programs, rather than in service or delivery!

And one should not underestimate the difficulty of briefing the political level against a particular initiative or program based on service delivery grounds:

Most Canadians expect value for money in their spending, especially in these uncertain and inflationary times. With worker shortages, empty offices, supply chain woes, high energy prices, soaring inflation and painful accommodation costs, Canadian consumers are worried about their financial health.

But what about governments? Are they delivering value for Canadians’ hard-earned tax dollars? For anyone seeking a passport or visa, lining up for airport security screening, trying to get a Nexus card, waiting for a routine medical procedure or watching government procurement systems that cannot deliver payroll, the answer is unambiguously negative.

Core government services are not being delivered well today, and this not only erodes confidence in government as an institution – it also undermines productivity and competitiveness in the Canadian economy.

What are the causes? While there is no single answer, it is clearly not due to a shortage of spending, public servants, consultants or debt. At the federal level from 2015 to 2022, the size of the public service grew by 30 per cent, the use of consultants shot up 40 per cent, government spending skyrocketed by 66 per cent and government debt almost doubled. In short, the size of government expanded, considerably, while the efficiency of government declined, noticeably – not a good combination.

In fact, the stratospheric and scattered spending is one root cause of the delivery problem.

Before, during and since the pandemic, the federal government has unleashed a vast array of new programs. New program delivery is complex and time-consuming work, requiring highly capable, experienced and empowered public servants. Indeed, “delivery” is the nuts and bolts of policy implementation and program operations – it encompasses the design of new programs, the stress testing of the design to avoid unintended consequences, ensuring robust IT and data systems to support the program, the hiring and training of staff, establishing quality control and compliance systems, and communicating to the intended beneficiaries how the program works.

There is a risk of moral hazard here – as governments try to do more and more, they may end up achieving less and less. The problem arises from the scale, scope and speed of new spending. Too many new programs, with too little prioritization, that are too quickly rushed to the “press release stage” is a recipe for delivery problems, not only of the new programs but also related existing programs on common platforms.

Today’s reality of government not being particularly good at actually delivering things – both core services and new programs – should be a matter of concern well beyond the Ottawa bubble. If you believe what government does matters to Canadian society and the economy, as we do, then less-than-stellar delivery of government services neither serves the public interest nor bolsters the public’s trust in our institutions of government.

What can be done? Like any complex problem, there is no single solution, but four possible actions deserve serious consideration.

First, pause the proliferation of new spending and new programs. This is needed to restore operational integrity and program delivery capacity as well as to support fiscal sustainability in a period of high inflation, high interest rates and high debt. And yet, the risk today is a proliferation of new government programs and the scaling up of existing ones ranging from new industrial policies to new energy transition programs, national dental care and pharmacare, new health transfers, increases in defence spending and expanded immigration. Whatever the policy merits of these proposed initiatives, this is simply not the time to expand government. Rather, it’s the time to refocus on meeting the expectations of Canadians for quality and timely delivery of government services.

Second, reverse the extreme centralization of decision-making within government. This is necessary for better governance as well as better program delivery. Too much decision making has been vested in the Prime Minister’s Office at the expense of ministers, cabinet and Parliament. Ministerial accountability and collective decision making, with fearless advice from an empowered, non-partisan public service, are central to our Westminster system of government. The sad fact is we have strayed far from that guiding ideal.

Third, modernize the architecture of compliance and oversight within government. This requires a profound shift from an operating culture of control and risk avoidance to one of innovation, risk taking and delegation. In the name of protecting the taxpayer, there is a compliance morass pervading government today, with overlapping oversight bodies, excessive red tape and needless reporting – all of which impedes getting things done and delivered.

Fourth, invest in the public service. This is not a call for a larger public service but a better equipped one. The public service needs the IT and data systems that allowed the banks to develop online banking and companies like Amazon to revolutionize delivery. It needs the skill sets for a digital world not an analog one, and should engage consultants as the exception not the rule. The public service should be an exciting place to work, empowering public servants to make a difference and attracting the best and brightest – and public servants are up to the challenge.

Better service delivery is in everyone’s interest. These changes would result in a higher-performing, more productive public sector. That should be part of Canada’s competitive advantage in a challenging world.

Kevin Lynch was clerk of the Privy Council and vice-chair of BMO. Jim Mitchell is an adjunct professor at Carleton University and a former assistant secretary to the cabinet.

Source: Instead of adding new programs, Ottawa should focus on proper delivery of the ones it has

Filed under Government Tagged with , ,

Crackdown on ‘birth tourism’ as pregnant Russians flock to Argentina

2023/02/13 Leave a comment

Of note. Sharp contrast to the pre-pandemic and pre-invasion of Ukraine preference of oligarchs and ultra-rich Russians for Miami as these women appear to have limited financial resources. Given Canadian visa requirements, does not appear to be any surge in Canada although there are some lawyers who in the past had marketed their services to Russian birth tourists:

Immigration authorities in Argentina are cracking down on Russian women who since the invasion of Ukraine have started travelling to Buenos Aires to give birth in order to gain Argentinian citizenship for their children.

The director of Argentina’s immigration office, Florencia Carignano, said on Friday that a judicial investigation has been launched into what she described as a lucrative business that promises Argentinian passports for the Russian parents.

Carignano spoke after 33 expecting women – all between 32 and 34 weeks into their pregnancies – arrived on the same flight late on Thursday. Several of the women were initially turned away at passport control but were eventually let into the country.

While the concept of birth tourism isn’t new, Moscow’s isolation from the west as a result of the war has made Argentina, where Russians face no visa requirements, a popular destination for families looking to give their children the privileges of second citizenship.

Some 10,500 pregnant Russians have arrived in the South American country in the past year, Carignano said.

Carignano said in a Telenueve channel interview on Friday that “5,800 of them [were] in the last three months, many of them declaring they were in the 33rd or 34th week of pregnancy.”

The official said that about 7,000 of the women returned home after giving birth, leaving Argentinian lawyers charged with applying for Argentinian citizenship for the baby – and then the parents.

“The problem is that they arrive, have their children and then leave Argentina never to come back,” Carignano said. “We cannot allow them to shamelessly lie to us saying that they are tourists when they are not.”

Source: Crackdown on ‘birth tourism’ as pregnant Russians flock to Argentina

Filed under Birthright Citizenship, Citizenship Tagged with , ,

Trudeau pushing softer approach to temporary visas, less focus on risk of overstaying

2023/02/13 Leave a comment

Would be nice if we actually had published data on the number of visa overstays to inform policy and monitor extent of issue (USA reports on overstays). Some progress in recognizing impact of immigration on housing…:

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau says he’s pushing Canada’s immigration system to soften its approach to processing visa applications and put less focus on the risk of visitors overstaying their short-term visas.

“We’re also trying to do a better job around temporary visas,” Trudeau said Friday.

“The system — I’ll be honest — is still based around, ‘Prove to me that you won’t stay if you come,’ right?” he said, arguing that it is easier for applicants to “convince” immigration officials to grant them visas if they have “a good job and a home and a house and a good status back home.”

On the other hand, people who are strongly motivated to be in Canada for family reasons could be seen by officials as more likely to overstay, he suggested: “If your mom talks about how much she loves you and just wants to be there (in Canada), and you’re there all alone, that’s scary.”

Trudeau made the remarks Friday during an hour-long meeting with about 25 Algonquin College nursing students in Ottawa. Many of them told him they are international students, and a handful mentioned visa issues.

During a question-and-answer session, one international student recounted being hospitalized for seven months and feeling isolated. She told the prime minister her mother had tried twice to get a visa to come visit her, but both applications were rejected.

Trudeau responded that it is vital for Canadians to have faith in the integrity of their immigration system. But he also suggested that he had asked Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada to take a less defensive posture when issuing visas.

“We have to stop saying ‘Well, it would be a bad people, a bad thing, if these people were to choose to stay,'” Trudeau said. “Our immigration minister, Sean Fraser, is working very, very hard on trying to shift the way we look at immigration and make sure that we’re bringing people in.”

The prime minister told the student that the Immigration Department made the wrong call in deciding not to admit her mother.

“It would seem unfair to Canadians and to all sorts of people if there was a back door. These are all the things we’re trying to balance,” Trudeau said. “But I absolutely hear you. Your mom should have been able to come and see you.”

Trudeau added that the federal immigration system is challenged by Canada’s need to fill labour gaps and by numerous crises abroad that are causing people to flee their homes.

Trudeau also said Ottawa has to do a better job helping immigrants thrive. Otherwise, he said, Canadians’ warm feelings toward immigration could chill.

“An anti-immigration party would have a hard time succeeding in Canada, because so many Canadians understand how important that is,” Trudeau said. “We need to protect the fact that Canadians are pro-immigration.”

For example, he said there must be enough housing stock for newcomer families to establish themselves without breeding resentment among the Canadian-born population. But he suggested immigration could also help solve that problem.

“There’s a labour shortage in the construction industry and building houses. So as we bring in more people who can build houses, we will solve some of the housing shortage,” said Trudeau.

“There are solutions in this. Part of it is shifting the attitudes. Part of it is also just improving our ability to process (applications) using proper digital means and computer means.”

Fraser’s office confirmed that work is underway to look at how Ottawa issues visas for relatives of people already in Canada.

“Reuniting families is a pillar of Canada’s immigration system,” the minister’s spokeswoman, Bahoz Dara Aziz, said in a statement. “We continue to be guided by principles of fairness and compassion, and work to explore all avenues possible in bringing people together with their loved ones.”

Canada’s visa denials and processing delays have made global headlines in the past year, with citizens of developing countries finding themselves unable to attend global conferences hosted in Canadian cities.

This week, the International Studies Association went public with its struggles to get visas for hundreds of people set to attend a Montreal conference next month.

Despite presenting plane tickets, income data and evidence of funding they received to attend the conference, many attendees, including panelists, have been denied on the grounds that they can’t demonstrate a likelihood of returning home when the event is over.

The issues follow an uproar last year over the denial of visas for multiple African delegates to the International AIDS Conference, also held in Montreal, which had some accusing Canada of racism.

Data updated Tuesday show that visa applications take an average of 217 days to process for people based in Britain. It’s 212 days for people in France.

While citizens of those countries don’t need visitor visas to come to Canada, academics from many developing countries who are based in Paris or London do need a visa to attend a conference Canada.

The Immigration Department did not respond to the concerns until after The Canadian Press published an article Wednesday.

“IRCC works collaboratively with organizers of international events taking place in Canada to help co-ordinate processing of temporary resident visa applications for delegates or participants to Canada,” spokesman Jeffrey MacDonald said in an email.

“We are committed to the fair and non-discriminatory application of immigration procedures. We take this responsibility seriously, and officers are trained to assess applications equally against the same criteria.”

The department said the complexity and accuracy of information in a visa application can influence how quickly IRCC processes it, in addition to the staffing and resources of offices that handle the requests.

But the department also noted that the processing times it posts online are often not “reflective of reality.”

That’s because the estimate is based on how long it took officials to process 80 per cent of applications in the previous six to eight weeks. Those include long-backlogged cases.

“Processing times can be skewed by outliers, in particular applications from our older inventory that were previously on hold for a long period of time and are now being processed,” MacDonald wrote.

“Once this backlog of applications is cleared, we will start to see processing times more reflective of reality.”

Source: Trudeau pushing softer approach to temporary visas, less focus on risk of overstaying

Filed under Immigration Tagged with , ,

U.S. border agents give rides to Quebec-bound migrants as side hustle, sources tell Radio-Canada

2023/02/13 Leave a comment

Hard not to see how this story, and the higher numbers, will not encourage the government to act (not just pretend to act?):

U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) is investigating reports that some of its border patrol agents are driving Quebec-bound asylum seekers to the irregular border crossing on Roxham Road in exchange for money, picking up groups of people in nearby Plattsburgh, N.Y., while off duty.

Sources have told Radio-Canada the practice “has been known for a few months,” adding that several agents are involved, but the exact number is unknown.

The CBP’s Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) said Friday it “is in receipt of these allegations and is conducting an investigation” but “the commencement of an OPR investigation is not indicative of wrongdoing or the substantiation of alleged misconduct.”

This situation has been reported to Canadian authorities, according to Radio-Canada sources.

Many people looking to cross into Canada use a regular bus line to get to Plattsburgh,which is about 30 minutes away from Roxham Road.

From there, they walk through a wooded passage, enter Canada and seek asylum.

CBSA says it’s ‘aware of situation

When first contacted by Radio-Canada, the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) confirmed twice in writing that it was aware of the transportation situation involving U.S. border patrol agents and migrants.

“We are aware of the information you are reporting,” said spokesperson Jacqueline Roby. She added that the CBSA “is in contact with the United States regarding irregular migration issues.”

In another written exchange, the CBSA repeated the same message while instructing Radio-Canada to contact its American counterparts, the CBP.

Source: U.S. border agents give rides to Quebec-bound migrants as side hustle, sources tell Radio-Canada

Filed under Immigration Tagged with , , ,

Wernick: The never-ending question of contracting in the public service

2023/02/13 Leave a comment

Interesting how some former clerks remain silent in retirement and others like Wernnick, play a useful public role in sharing their reflections over the unsolved (and perhaps unsolvable) systemic issues of government and governing:

Over the last few months, we have seen a rising tide of interest in the use of contracted services by the federal government. The latest episode seems to have crystallized around the use of consulting firms, notably McKinsey & Company. It has triggered another round of partisan squabbling at a parliamentary committee and the pack of journalists who cover politics are piling on, unsure of what narrative is the most important.

It is not clear what “theory of the case,” if any, is driving the current flap. At its simplest, the Opposition and the media are drilling wells hoping for a political gusher. Can they find something untoward in the contracting process? Can they find something troubling in the relationship with a particular supplier? Can you show poor value for money? If they can’t find proof of anything untoward, a stream of insinuation can still generate political rewards.

The more interesting angles to this are about whether the use of outside contractors is a sign of weakening capacity by the public service, at least the federal version, or augurs of a dangerous dependency. That is far from clear as a diagnostic and, once again, the point would be what tangible actions anyone is prepared to take to do something about it. For me, the issue is not whether to use outside suppliers of services, but how to use them to best effect.

There is nothing new about governments at every level acquiring services from outside suppliers, and no iron rule to lean on as to whether work is best done by public servants or contractors. It is a matter of judgment, informed by business choices around cost, timeliness and quality, and by ideological preferences about the role of the state.

There are three ways to get a flow of work done: by permanent public servants; by temporary public servants (term appointments, casuals, seasonal workers, students); or by outside contractors. The first two fall under “staffing” policies and processes, while the third falls under “procurement and contracting.” All three generate costs for the government. These days, Ottawa spends roughly $50 billion on its public service and $15 billion on contracted services. Is that mix the right one? If you want to dampen or cut government spending, which should be cut more deeply?

Permanent public servants are expensive, carrying a premium beyond their salaries in terms of benefits and future pension costs. They are difficult to move around and almost impossible to terminate for poor performance. They are entangled in a complex web of collective agreements and human resource mechanisms. They do however bring experience, expertise, loyalty, engagement and an orientation to the public interest, as opposed to short-term profit. The smart business choice is often to build up and develop sustainable capacity within a public service entity.

But the truth – uncomfortable for some – is that sometimes it makes more sense to go to an outside supplier where a pool of expertise resides. Just as the private sector does, it often makes sense for governments to outsource services, whether they are ongoing or related to a specific project with finite time frames. A large consideration is matching supply to demand.

The federal government is actually more than 300 distinct entities, most of them small, working on a vast array of tasks and projects. It would make little sense for each of them to build up permanent staff and cost structures to deal with the episodic need for some kinds of work. That is why there is a range of internal service providers such as Public Services and Procurement Canada, Shared Services Canada and the Translation Bureau. It is also why bringing in outside firms often makes sense.

It is commonplace and relatively uncontroversial now for governments to contract building maintenance and security, to retain external auditors and to hire legal counsel with specific skills. The federal government contracts translators and interpreters for specific events or tasks. It contracts communications firms to develop and place advertising, and to conduct market research to find out what users and citizens are thinking. I can recall a period of controversy about using temporary help agencies for administrative work.

As governments have moved more and more of their transactional and information services to the web and phone apps – while chasing rising expectations for speed, accuracy, cybersecurity and personalization – they have turned to firms that work with large private sector clients around the world that are wrestling with similar challenges. At their best, these firms help upgrade both the hardware and software of government technology, and train public servants to work with whatever is the emerging toolkit.

The pressure to continuously improve externally facing services and the internal services that support them make it sensible to retain firms that have worked with other governments and with private sector firms on queue management, customer relationship interfaces, customization of offerings, and protection of privacy and security. It is simply not true that public servants could keep up all by themselves. Nor is it true that all the people with the skills and knowledge needed by governments want to become public servants. Nor is it true that private firms always do good work – as we saw with the Phoenix pay system and with some apps, such as ArriveCAN – or do it at less cost.

What seems to be troubling some observers is the use of “management consultants,” which is a very elastic term. At their best, firms can offer an outside perspective on business processes, internal governance, organizational maturity, costing, risk management and other management issues. They can draw on international networks and expertise gained from working with a range of clients. For the public sector, they can be a useful antidote to inertia and the culture of “but that is the way we have always done things.”

The private sector uses external advisers extensively. I worked with several ministers who were highly sceptical of public service advice and insisted on running the issue by an outside firm with a big reputation before taking a decision. During spending reviews, ministers reflexively turn to outside advisers because they assume, with some justification, that the public service won’t be willing to challenge itself or consider new approaches.

The current McKinsey episode has surfaced concerns that advisory firms are starting to play a bigger role in decisions about policy – the “what” government chooses to do, as opposed to “how” it does it. It has also raised concerns that the public sector can become too dependent on outside firms with a profit motive and an interest in generating future work and billings. These are valid topics for scrutiny. Public service unions make valid arguments about the potential exploitation of gig workers with little job security or benefits at these outside firms. But there are valid arguments for using outside suppliers that can’t be dismissed as mindless privatization.

The boundaries between insourcing and outsourcing have always generated controversy. Can we use these brief periods of attention to do something about it beyond scoring short-term points?

The politicians and pundits who now argue for less use of external advisers should commit themselves in action or argument to a doubling of the resources allocated to training public servants and to a much expanded program for interchange of permanent staff between the public service, and the private and not-for-profit sectors. They should also endorse greatly expanding the resources used to acquire outside perspective and fresh ideas from the supply chain of think tanks and academic centres.

To be an intelligent buyer getting value for money for taxpayers and citizens, the public service must always invest in its leadership cadre, in its capacity in vendor management, in project management, and in its processes to onboard and internalize the skills and knowledge that working with outside advisors can provide. It should be possible to create a positive feedback loop and learning cycle that makes the public service better.

Source: The never-ending question of contracting in the public service

Filed under Government Tagged with ,

← Older posts

Newer posts →