Tag Archives: Public Service

Roundup: It’s like the market is deciding

Posted on by

There remains a lot of insistence that Canada should be exporting more LNG, and confusion as to why we’re not. And lo, there are a bunch of market forces at work, as fully permitted projects are not getting underway. Justin Trudeau’s remarks about there not being a business case turns out to actually be true. Funny how that works.

 

Ukraine Dispatch, Day 345:

Russia hit more apartment buildings in Kramatorsk in overnight bombings, while they try and encircle Bakhmut in the East. Meanwhile, the UK is saying no to providing fighter jets to Ukraine because they say that training the pilots takes three years (and yeah, I can see that, not to mention the maintenance on them is hideously time-consuming). Ukraine is also restarting repairs to some of its power plants, which is relieving the electricity shortages brought on by attacks.

https://twitter.com/zelenskyyua/status/1621193898948182021

Continue reading →

Roundup: Keeping the focus on the distraction

Posted on by

If our Parliament were at all serious, we would see House of Commons committee studies be actual serious affairs. But we’re no longer a serious Parliament, and MPs seem to go out of their way to demonstrate this at every opportunity. Yesterday it was the government operations committee, which is studying those McKinsey contracts, and they had an expert from Carleton University before them, who studies the use of external consultants by governments. She kept telling them that the focus on McKinsey was a distraction from the real problems. But what did the Conservatives in particular want to ask about? McKinsey, because they think it’s a political winner for them to start building this bullshit conspiracy theory that somehow Dominic Barton is secretly running Canada, and that McKinsey got all of these contracts because Trudeau likes Barton (never mind that the McKinsey contracts are on the extremely low end of the consultancy scale).

If we had a serious Parliament, they would have asked better questions and been more on the ball about the larger problem. But we don’t, and instead we got a bunch of showboating for the cameras, which will all wind up in social media shitposts.

Ukraine Dispatch, Day 342:

Russian forces have been shelling both Kharkiv and Kherson, hitting residential buildings in both cities, while moving on the towns of Maryinka and Vuhledar, which are near Bakhmut. Meanwhile, France and Poland appear to be seriously considering getting fighter jets like F-16s to Ukraine, even though the Americans are unwilling.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Say no to a Consultant Commissioner

Posted on by

Because a lot of people continue to be wringing their hands over government contracts to outside consultants, we’re starting to hear a few…less than stellar ideas. One of them came from Paul Wells yesterday, while on the CBC’s Front Burner podcast (Wells’ portion starts at 20:46). While there is some good context from Carleton University professor Amanda Clarke on the size of the problem (thread here), Wells is wrong about two particular portions, and he would have avoided this had he listened to my conversation with professor Jennifer Robson on my YouTube channel last week.

The first is the notion that when these consultants’ job is done, nobody is accountable for the work because most of their agreements mean that it can’t be subject to Access to Information rules, which is wrong. Fundamentally the minister is accountable no matter what. It wouldn’t matter if the work was done by outside consultants or the civil servants in the department, the minister remains responsible, and people seem to be forgetting this in their rush to condemn the consultants. The other part where he’s wrong is his idea to create a “consultant commissioner of Parliament” or other such independent officer.

No. Absolutely not.

We already have way too many gods damned independent officers of parliament, who are unaccountable, and to whom MPs have completely abandoned their constitutional responsibilities of oversight. Sure, the media and the opposition want someone independent they can quote on command to say mean things about the government, but that winds up just creating more bureaucracy, and doesn’t help the overall situation, especially as it drags us further down the road to technocracy rather than parliamentary oversight. The absolute last thing we need are more independent officers, and I wish to gods people would stop proposing them.

Ukraine Dispatch, Day 335:

Russian forces have continued to pound the Donetsk region in the country’s east. Russians are also claiming Ukrainians are storing Western weapons in the country’s nuclear power plants, but have provided no proof. Meanwhile, president Volodymyr Zelenskyy is promising personnel changes at both senior and lower levels after high-profile graft allegations, as part of the country’s attempt to clean up its corruption problem.

Continue reading →

Roundup: New Zealand’s leadership selection

Posted on by

New Zealand is about to have a new prime minister, and lo, it was a process that took a single day. Yes, it was an acclamation where only one person put his name forward (“to avoid disunity,”), but that is less of an issue because New Zealand is one of the last remaining parliaments where it’s decided by a vote held within the caucus among the MPs—the way that Westminster parliaments are supposed to work. And of course, it’s completely alien to how things have devolved in this country.

The quasi-American pseudo-presidential primary system that we’ve adopted in this country is corrosive to politics. It has hollowed out the political parties, and pretty much killed grassroots riding associations, because they no longer matter to the party. Memberships—paid or unpaid (as is the latest craze)—is about leadership selection, not sticking around to do the hard policy work, because the parties have centralized that and justify it using Big Data. It’s all about populating databases rather than ensuring you have a base of engaged partisans who act as a link between the community and the caucus in Parliament. The leader then turns the party into a personality cult while they wield almost absolute power because there are almost no checks on that remaining. At least with caucus selection, there is a direct line of accountability so that the caucus that chose the leader can remove said leader as well, which is one of the most important considerations.

Suffice to say, while one might have preferred that they at least had a vote between two candidates for the job, the fact that they have retained caucus selection is important, and Canada needs to return to the same system if we are to have any hope of fixing the damage to our system.

Ukraine Dispatch, Day 332:

Russian forces claim that they took control of the town of Klishchiivka, south of Bakhmut, which their mercenaries claimed to have taken already. And they’re still claiming they’ve taken Soledar, which Ukraine disputes. Meanwhile, the NATO meeting in Ramstein, Germany, ended without an agreement on sending Leopard 2 tanks to Ukraine, as Germany is the holdout and needs to authorize the use of their technology.

https://twitter.com/oleksiireznikov/status/1616506280876642317

Continue reading →

Roundup: The committee goes after McKinsey

Posted on by

The Commons’ government operations committee met and, as expected, launched a study into those McKinsey contracts, but because the Liberals decided to be tricksey about it, they got consent to amend the terms so they’re going to review contracts going back to 2011, which means they’ll also be reviewing Conservative-era contracts. But it’s all pretty stupid because McKinsey does very little in the way of government contracts overall (especially compared to a number of other big firms), and this is just about politics and the Conservatives trying to accuse McKinsey of being a “Liberal-friendly firm” because of Dominic Barton, not to mention the fact that McKinsey has had a lot of bad press of late. But this doesn’t touch the overall issue of use of outside consultants by government, and is mostly going to be about showboating, because why do actual valuable work in committee when you can spend all of your time scoring partisan points.

With that in mind, I will point you to my most recent YouTube episode, where Carleton university professor Jennifer Robson and I discuss the rise of the so-called “shadow public service,” and it’s a lot more nuanced than you think. Additional context from Robson below:

Ukraine Dispatch, Day 330:

The major news out of Ukraine was a helicopter crash, killing the country’s interior minister, senior staffers, and one child when it crashed into a kindergarten in a suburb of Kyiv. What we know and don’t know about the crash can be found here, but there is no indication yet if it was downed by Russian missiles. Meanwhile, the International Atomic Energy Agency is placing teams in all four of Ukraine’s nuclear power plants to reduce the risk of accidents as the fighting carries on.

https://twitter.com/zelenskyyua/status/1615719966820507684

 

Continue reading →

Roundup: Encouraging noises on health transfers

Posted on by

There seems to be a noticeable shift in tone coming from several premiers when it comes to the federal government’s demands that there be more strings attached to future federal health care transfers, and that they seem to be realizing that their time-old tactics of simply blaming the federal government isn’t working as well as it used to. In part, I think that Justin Trudeau has stepped up his game on communication around this issue more than he usually does, and made effective use of his round of year-end interviews on this file, and showed that he was willing to give them more money, but that there needs to be changes rather than putting money into a broken system that won’t get meaningful results. I also think that shit is getting real for the premiers as we are now seeing an increasing number of deaths in ERs that should have been preventable, and that the patience of the population when it comes to children’s hospitals in particular is now gone, and they are being forced to wear it more than they would normally have had to in the past.

So, this sounds like an increased willingness to rebrand federal strings as “shared priorities,” and that’s a climbdown that premiers seem to be increasingly willing to live with. But then again, I wouldn’t trust all of the premiers, and in particular Doug Ford, whose math about new beds is false advertising, and who is hilariously claiming that new private surgery clinics won’t cannibalise hospital staff or resources, because of course they will. That’s the whole gods damned point. His “safeguards” will be as effective as toddler gates whose latches can be figured out and overcome within seconds. So, while it’s good to hear the shift in tone, I wouldn’t count any unhatched chickens just yet.

Ukraine Dispatch, Day 325:

Russians are once again claiming that they are now in control of the remains of Soledar, but the Ukrainians continue to say their units are still there and still fighting.

https://twitter.com/bachyns/status/1613939963237732365

Continue reading →

Roundup: Morneau has a few legitimate gripes

Posted on by

There is a lot of media attention around Bill Morneau’s upcoming book, and he’s started to do the interview circuits, and lo, he did one with CTV at the end of last week that aired over the weekend. In what he describes around his time in office, some of it has to do with some of the frustrations he felt, and I will say that some of them are very legitimate. Things like how he could never have a private meeting with Justin Trudeau, and that there was always someone from his staff there—that’s very legitimate! And it’s something that I’ve heard from a lot of different sources, including the fact that this extends to the caucus room, where it’s supposed to just be MPs in attendance, and was under previous leaders. (There would also have been senators under previous leaders, but that’s a topic for another day).

But some of what Morneau describes also points out that after several years on the job, he’s still something of a political naïf who hasn’t quite grasped that Parliament Hill is not Bay Street (and that is a big reason why he got caught up in an ethics breach over the WE Charity issue). What may be the best policy in his opinion may not be politically saleable, and I don’t think he has ever really grasped that notion. I think some of his thoughts on the pandemic benefits packages are a little too clouded in hindsight bias, and the fact that he was overridden on the wage subsidy had a lot to do with the original proposal was not being seen to be up to the task at hand. I saw in another excerpt from the book that he complained that some ministers were being placated with amounts of money that he didn’t like, but I am curious what some of that programme spending was. In any case, I don’t think this will make too big of a wave, or that there is anything too explosive in all of the write-ups I’ve seen, and it’s likely to make too much of a splash, beyond him trying to rehabilitate his reputation before he goes back to Bay Street in a more visible way.

Ukraine Dispatch, Day 320:

The “ceasefire” is passed, and Russian forces have been shelling in the Donbas region, as well as Zaporizhzhia. During the Orthodox Christmas celebrations in Ukraine, president Volodymyr Zelenskyy praised the incoming new package of military aid from the US. There was a prisoner swap on Sunday where both sides released 50 prisoners.

Continue reading →

Roundup: The mounting spending on McKinsey consultants

Posted on by

There is a report out from Radio-Canada about the current government’s increasing reliance on consulting reports from McKinsey, with an explosion of contract spending on them. And it’s not good—it’s expensive, it’s corrosive to the capabilities of the civil service, and it undermines the ability for there to be transparency in these kinds of consultations. There is an attitude that anything coming from outside government is better, and the civil service (rightly) feels put out by it without also recognising that some of their own dysfunction has contributed to these attitudes.

I would note, however, that the story does leave out some of the context around the increasing use of external consultants and the history, particularly under the previous government. While the focus of this story was on McKinsey and how this government seems to be relying on them more, we have to also remember that a lot of this outsourcing of work that should be done by the civil service sharply increased under the previous government, particularly as they cut capacity and capability in the civil service, and then found it from external sources, where it was easier to be told what they wanted to hear. (That, and it was a tactic in their outright war on the civil service). This isn’t to say that the civil service is still a bastion of telling truth to power, because it hasn’t been for a while now, and the dysfunction of the relationship between government and the professional civil-service is a real problem that has no easy solutions. But it’s getting worse and not better, even under this government that promised to restore that relationship (though interviews I’ve done for other stories suggests that they didn’t have any idea about how bad things were in the civil service when they made that promise). It would be great if ministers could actually listen to their departments rather than hiring these outside consultants, but it’s not like this government is a fount of political courage in doing things all that differently when it comes down to it.

Ukraine Dispatch, Day 316:

As Russian missiles have struck civilian targets in Kramatorsk, Zaporizhzhia and Kherson, Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelenskyy says that Russia is planning a new mobilization in order to delay their inevitable defeat. Meanwhile, Canadian-made LAVs are now reaching the battlefield in Ukraine.

Continue reading →

Roundup: A few notes on the hybrid quotes

Posted on by

Because the hybrid parliament debate will resume in the New Year, CTV has a collection of quotes from MPs both here and in comparable Parliaments abroad about the format, and I find some of the commentary to be lacking. A few notes:

  1. Lots of talk about being able to participate while stick, while ignoring that this is setting up an extremely unhealthy system of presenteeism. MPs should be allowed to take sick days or leave if they require treatment for something like cancer, and not be made to feel guilty about it.
  2. There was some talk about party whips setting up rules for when MPs can appear virtually, but there seemed to be a lot of “when they feel like it” happening, particularly since Niki Ashton only appeared in Ottawa for two days the whole fall sitting, which should be absolutely unacceptable.
  3. Our committees are in crisis because of how they have been limited by hybrid sittings and the lack of interpretation staff. Only two government bills that were not budget-related got passed in the fall. Two. Some bills were in committee the entire thirteen sitting weeks that they sat, and are still not out of committee. Additionally, there are some committee chairs who are only appearing virtually (while not sick or infirm), which should not be allowed because it’s impossible to moderate a room you’re not in.
  4. The piece did quote the interim head of the interpretation service, but absolutely none of the MPs raised a single concern for the injuries that they are telling the interpreters to suffer so that they can appear remotely when they feel like it. The continued lack of basic awareness or concern about this remains unconscionable, and it’s absolutely shameful that MPs can’t arse themselves to care.
  5. Only the Bloc raised the concerns that ministers aren’t accessible because they are moving increasingly remotely, and allowing virtual voting is even worse for that. It used to be the time when MPs could get a chance to catch a minister’s attention about a matter that requires their attention, because they were all in the Chamber at the same time. Now most ministers run out of the Chamber when votes begin and vote on their phones from their cars, and they are no longer accessible, and that is a very big problem. Similarly, the more MPs and ministers are remote, the less they are able to be button-holed by journalists, making them even less accountable than they already are (especially because the architecture of the West Block makes it too easy for them to avoid media, even when they are there).

I don’t care how convenient MPs find hybrid sittings or remote voting, it’s degrading our institutions and it needs to come to an end immediately.

Ukraine Dispatch, Day 302:

I could find no stories on the situation on the ground in Ukraine because absolutely all of the coverage was about President Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s trip to Washington DC. During Zelenskyy’s visit with President Joe Biden at the White House, we got confirmation that the US will be sending Patriot anti-missile systems to Ukraine. Zelenskyy then headed to the Capitol, where he met with Nancy Pelosi (who enthused that this was just like when her father met with Winston Churchill in Congress 81 year ago), before Zelenskyy addressed a joint session of Congress. His message—that aid for Ukraine isn’t charity, but an investment in democracy and security, at a time when a number of US representatives are publicly doubting the “blank cheque” that has been given to Ukraine.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Delaying the expansion of MAiD?

Posted on by

The day after the House of Commons rose for the winter break, David Lametti and Carolyn Bennett announced that they would be moving to delay the implementation of the expansion of medical assistance in dying for those who suffer solely from a mental disorder, or for mature minors with terminal conditions. The problem? The expansion date is already legislated, so they will need to pass legislation when they return at the end of January in order to make that happen, and they haven’t released any details to opposition parties about what kind of delay they’re talking about.

There are a lot of problems with this announcement. While I won’t repeat most of what I wrote in this column last week, part of the problem is that this perpetuates an unfairness for those who have an untreatable mental disorder but also have another comorbidity who can apply for MAiD while those who don’t have the comorbidity can’t, and in the process, it continues to stigmatise mental illness. That’s why the delay also goes against the Supreme Court of Canada’s finding of unconstitutionality. Meanwhile, everyone who says “mental health is health” but is pulling for this delay is making a hypocrite of themselves because you’re proving that it’s something separate. Additionally, you can’t just say the federal government shouldn’t go ahead with the expansion until more supports are offered because they cannot legislate those supports. Those have to come from the provinces, who are not bound to any federal timetable, and while yes, the federal government is negotiating a dedicated mental health transfer to the provinces, we are back to the problem of negotiating outcomes into that agreement and provinces balking at strings. We can’t divorce the fact that most of the objections to this are either socially conservatives in nature that oppose all forms of MAiD in principle, or it’s from people squeamish about mental illness and who are further perpetuating stigmatisation. I have little doubt that this is going to turn into a meltdown in February once MPs are back, and it’s going to be extremely hard on the system.

Ukraine Dispatch, Day 296:

Russian forces are pounding the Donetsk region. Russia has been threatening “consequences” if the US does deliver a Patriot anti-missile system to Ukraine, without spelling out what those are, but part of the problem with America transferring the systems is that they take some 90 personnel to operate and training which they can’t provide on the ground.

Continue reading →