Ramos and Griffith: Human rights defenders should boycott immigration conference in Beijing

Our op-ed in the Ottawa Citizen (part of the national Postmedia chain for those outside of Canada):

The number of international events being hosted by China is on the rise. At first glance, one might argue that global exchange is a mechanism for the West to normalize democratic values and open science. However, the world is increasingly witnessing repressive regimes, such as that in China, rise in influence at the cost of human rights and democracy. This then raises the question: Does participating in events hosted by such regimes promote engagement or complicity?

The Chinese regime has created a number of quasi-independent groups, such as the Center for China and Globalization (CCG), which bills itself as “China’s leading global non-governmental think tank with more than 10 branches and overseas representatives.” The CCG is in fact part of the United Front Work Department, a branch of the Chinese Communist Party that aims to exert Chinese government influence around the world. Both organizations are key pillars in attracting conferences to China, which means that their events will most likely legitimize the regime on the international stage, rather than curb it through engagement.

One example of how this plays out can be seen through the International Metropolis Conference, which involves government policy makers, academics and non-governmental sector organizations and is set to be held in Beijing this coming June. The CCG was a key stakeholder in wooing the conference’s secretariat and bringing it to China. The conference focuses on immigration and refugee issues and is widely known for promoting multiculturalism, diversity and inclusion. It was founded in 1996 with Canadian government funding and with strong links with Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada which hosted last year’s conference. Its secretariat is currently based at Carleton University. The conference and the “Metropolis” brand are almost synonymous with Canadian immigration.

Does participating in events hosted by such regimes promote engagement or complicity?Holding such a conference in China under the current regime can only legitimize Beijing’s human rights abuses. Both the United Nations and Amnesty International have issued reports warning that China is actively suppressing its ethnic minority populations. Up to one million  Muslim Uighur are being held in “re-education centres,” which are essentially prison camps. It is ironic to hold a conference on refugees in a country that produced them, and doing so is an act of complicity.

Based on past practices of the regime, it is almost certain that Chinese authorities will not permit a free and open exchange of ideas on relevant Chinese policy and practice. Foreign speakers will likely be discouraged from talking about issues that might “offend” the government, or will censor themselves. Chinese participants will be prohibited from doing so. It is also very likely that minders will be present to monitor and intervene in the event of any real or perceived criticism.

Some might argue that participating in the conference is a means to change the regime and that all countries have blemishes. Canada, for instance, still wrestles with ongoing colonialism. But, there is a major difference between countries that have entrenched human rights in their legislation and those, such as China, who do not. It is naïve to think that hosting an event in China will change its practices.

For this reason, more than 150 academics and representatives of non-governmental groups from across Canada and 11 countries signed a petition against both holding and attending the International Metropolis Conference in Beijing. They recognize that it is not too late to do something about the message Canada and other democratic countries send when they fund and participate in events in China, and that it is not too late for individual Canadians to make a difference.

It is time for Canada and other Western countries to recognize they cannot assume that policy and academic exchange will change repressive regimes. Rather it could potentially legitimate them or send the signal that the international community is willing to turn a blind eye. For these reasons it is time to rethink when it is appropriate to participate in events held by repressive regimes. Failing to do so risks compromising Canadian and international human rights values.

Source: https://ottawacitizen.com/opinion/columnists/ramos-and-griffith-human-rights-defenders-should-boycott-immigration-conference-in-beijing

One in five Canadian public servants claims harassment on the job

Seems familiar and little change from when I was in government a number of years ago:

Survey results, at a glance:

Employee Engagement:

– 93% say they will put in the extra effort to get the job done

– 79% like their job, a decrease from 84% in 2008

– 74% of employees report a sense of satisfaction from their work

Leadership:

– 75% of employees feel their supervisor keeps them informed about issues affecting their work

– 47% of employees say essential information flows effectively from senior management to staff

Performance Management:

– 79% say their work is assessed against identified goals and objectives

– 72% say they get useful feedback about their job performance

Training and Development:

– 63% say they get the training they need to do their job

– 52% feel their organization does a good job of supporting career development

Empowerment:

– 66% feel they have support to provide a high level of service

– 62% of employees believed that they have opportunities to provide input into decisions that affect their work, down from 68% in 2011

Work-life balance and workload:

– 78% say immediate supervisors supports the use of flexible work arrangements

–70% say they can complete their assigned workload during their regular working hours

–71% of employees say they have support for work-life balance

Respectful and ethical workplace:

– 94% say they have positive working relationships with colleagues

– 80% feel their colleagues behave in a respectful manner

– 79% feel that their organization respects them

–82% believe that employees in their organization carry out their duties in the public’s interest

Harassment:

– 19% say they were harassed in the past two years

Discrimination:

– Eight per cent of employees said they faced discrimination in the past two years. (The most common types were: Sex at 24 per cent; age at 23 per cent; and race at 20 per cent.)

One in five public servants claims harassment on the job | Ottawa Citizen.

Emergency debate on ISIL draws only handful of MPs | “Root Causes” and Government Stupidity

Interesting to see Conservatives invoking the Liberals R2P (Responsibility to Protect) initiative, which many conservative commentators have panned if memory serves me correctly:

Employment Minister Jason Kenney invoked the “responsibility to protect” doctrine to fight “genocide” against religious minorities in a sparsely attended yet spirited late-night debate Tuesday over Canada’s response to the Islamic State threat.

… In an extensive speech about the violence minorities face, Kenney took aim at “moral relativism” and cynicism, saying that supporting an existing military presence was the only effective response to the urgent situation.

“There are hundreds of thousands of girls who are facing serial gang rape in this circumstance in Iraq. There are children who have been beheaded,” he said, adding that persecuted families “don’t have time for ‘root causes” — a dig at a previous comment by Trudeau.

Kenney added that stopping ISIL from harming more people takes “hard power,” and couldn’t be done “with pleasant speeches, tents or humanitarian supplies.”

While I share his abhorrence of ISIS and similar groups, blindness or ignoring root causes leads to history repeating itself, and not calibrating the degree of intervention appropriately (admittedly hard to do, both substantively and politically).

Emergency debate on ISIL draws only handful of MPs | Ottawa Citizen.

Ottawa Citizen editorial demolishes the PM and Government’s logic in this regard (“We know (terrorists’) ideology is not the result of ‘social exclusion’ or other so-called ‘root causes.’ It is evil, vile and must be unambiguously opposed.”).

Have highlighted the money quote:

Are the Conservatives really arguing that terrorism, as an expression of pure evil, just springs up without explanation, like demonic possession? That any one of us might wake up tomorrow possessed of an urge to become a terrorist for no reason whatsoever? Surely there are reasons why one person takes up arms in an evil cause and another does not. To try to understand those reasons, and reduce their effect, is not to shrug at violence. It is in fact a moral duty.

Setting up these two perspectives in opposition – that terrorism has causes, and that terrorism is evil and must be opposed – might be time-honoured political strategy. But it’s wrong and dangerous rhetoric. One way to oppose terrorism is to understand it. The Conservative talking point implies that anyone who tries to figure out how to stop a kid from suburban Ontario from becoming a jihadi is, somehow, a terrorist sympathizer. It implies that any analyst who tries to understand the ebb and flow of propaganda within a territory is excusing violence. To sneer at any attempt to understand terrorism is a stupid approach to one of the world’s most insidious problems, and the Conservatives ought to know better. They do know better, but they’re trying to score points.

Canada can and must unambiguously oppose terrorism while trying to improve its understanding of how it operates and how its adherents recruit.

Editorial: Yes, terrorism has causes

Clement wants to cut public servants’ sick days to five | Ottawa Citizen

Nice euphemism “most transformative:”

Bureaucrats offered Clement various options on how to overhaul the plan and the proposal he selected was considered the “most transformative.” It also shows how willing the government is to wage a major battle with unions in the run-up to the 2015 election.

The creation of a short-term disability plan is not part of negotiations as such. But the number of sick days and ability to roll over unused days is enshrined in contracts and must be re-negotiated.

The fate of banked sick leave was a big question hanging over this round of bargaining. Public servants can’t cash in their unused sick leave when they retire and many leave with weeks or months in their banks.

The government had commissioned an actuarial valuation of the $5.2 billion in banked leave, which determined bureaucrats would only use about $1.4 billion worth of the unused leave. That $1.4 billion, recorded as a liability on the government’s books, will disappear if banked sick leave is abolished.

Many hoped Clement would allow some, if not all, to be carried over so employees could dip into their credits for extra leave if they needed more than the new five-day threshold. Canada Post did this when it revamped its sick leave.

Banked sick leave provides flexibility in case of longer illness or catastrophic illness such as cancer (which helped me tremendously).

While there was abuse, and thus some need to tighten up, it does seem Canada Post found a way to do so while preserving some flexibility.

Clement wants to cut public servants’ sick days to five | Ottawa Citizen.

Editorial: Wayne Wouters’ public service yet to be defined | Ottawa Citizen

Citizen’s editorial on what they perceive as Wayne Wouters’ mixed legacy:

It’s somewhat fitting that outgoing Clerk of the Privy Council Wayne Wouters’ first appearance before a House of Commons committee back in 2009 centred around the federal government’s use of public money and manpower for what many argued were partisan purposes. The specific issue then was the Conservatives’ controversial $34-million advertising campaign, web site makeover and signage to pump its economic action plan Wouters said the campaign broke no federal rules, to the head-shaking disbelief of opposition MPs, and it played into a bigger theme present throughout Wouters’ tenure. That is, where do you draw the line between politics and public service, how should the line be enforced, and how do you forge an effective working relationship that respects it?

Unfortunately, the line remains ill-defined to this day, and Wouters himself often strode close enough to it to raise hackles.

… Where Wouters did find obvious success was in getting both bureaucrats and politicians to buy in to his Destination 2020 plan to transform the public service into a lean, outgoing, healthy, relevant and tech-savvy force. It’s an ambitious document, and although it contains some very broad language and goals — some of which will ultimately be hard to really quantify — it could also wind up furnishing Wouters with an impressive legacy. Public Service reform has a long been a topic of discussion in the capital, and its ultimate failure has left a host of skeptics in its wake (not to mention a lot of sick, tired and demoralized bureaucrats).

That promise and legacy are now in the hands of incoming Privy Council Clerk Janice Charette. Here’s hoping she finds success in her new role.

Editorial: Wayne Wouters’ public service yet to be defined | Ottawa Citizen.

And a good profile on him and the difficult times he faced, also in The Citizen:

Wouters’s biggest challenge was stickhandling the public service with a Conservative government that made little secret of its mistrust of a bureaucracy that had worked so long for previous Liberal governments. Some argue he didn’t stand up enough for the public service and let it become too politicized, but others say he made the best of working with a difficult prime minister and a meddling Prime Minister’s Office.

“The lack of trust between politicians, public servants and Canadians is an underlying issue he faced that was exacerbated by personality and temperament and I think Wayne has done as good a job as anyone on this trust issue,” said Maryantonett Flumian, who worked closely with Wouters in several portfolios and now heads the Ottawa-based Institute on Governance.

“The clerk and prime minister are two very different personalities and he found a way of working together.”

Some say Wouters stepped into the job at a difficult time, as the public service faced the pressure of spending reviews, steady cuts and an unprecedented exodus of executive and managerial talent as baby boomers retired in record numbers.

“He made it work for sure between PCO and PMO and that is an important accomplishment,” said David Zussman, who holds the Jarislowsky Chair in Public Management at the University of Ottawa.

“Being interlocuter between the prime minister and public service is difficult and needs a good relationship. The fact he stayed as long as he did is a tribute to his skills and the fact that he understood where the prime minister is coming from and did his best to implement what the government wants to do.”

Wayne Wouters: Retiring clerk sparked controversy and compliments

Tolerating intolerance in Quebec- Round-up of Articles

Ongoing commentary on the proposed Charte des valeurs québécoises, starting with an editorial in the Ottawa Citizen criticizing the federal government for its relative silence:

Tolerating intolerance in Quebec.

Andrew Coyne, also in the Citizen, notes the ugly side of identity-based policies, and how that is a ‘hazard of nationalism’, and that it is not unique to Quebec given other examples (e.g., Canadian nationalism’s efforts to contrast everything with America, whether Obama was ‘black’ enough, difference feminism).

Coyne on Quebec: When minorities impose their will on other minorities

And some signs of weakness from the main opposition party in Quebec, the Liberals, in softening their earlier strong position opposed to the proposed Charte:

Signes religieux: la position du PLQ «évolue»

And a more positive opinion piece on the universality of humanity rather than the focus on difference, but overly so in not acknowledging that people have different ways, including faith, that bring them to the universal. Not one size fits all.

La réplique › Charte des valeurs québécoises – Le pare-brise est toujours plus grand que le rétroviseur