gdp's Comments

CPSRenewal.ca : Impossible Conversations: Off and Running: The Prospects and Pitfalls of Government Transitions in C

Fri, 27 Nov 2015 03:28:45 +0000

The big problem I have with these takes (and the V&E code) is that it all turns around the concept of non-partisanship, which would be fine if we had a mutually accepted definition of what non-partisanship actually means. But we don't, at all. There's no list of examples of specific activities (beyond actively campaigning for a party, which is a no-brainer) that would be considered partisan, which means people at the working level don't have something they can point to if a concern comes up. If there's no mutually accepted (or legislated) definition of a partisan activity, then everything turns into a debate. To illustrate my point, consider the following four examples. Is there anything written anywhere that indicates these actions are partisan or non-partisan? a) You are ordered to rewrite a news release so that instead of "Government of Canada," the release refers to “(Prime Minister's name) Government” (which will sound familiar to some); b) A minister or associate minister delegates an announcement to an MP in a riding adjacent to the riding where it takes place, then asks public servants to support the announcement as if it was the minister doing it; c) A minister`s office requests analysis of financial issues before and after a specific date that coincides with the election of a different party (rather than a particular policy change); or d) A minister's office orders departmental SM accounts to promote hashtags that are also being used by the party's SM accounts. I'm not arguing these are partisan or non-partisan. I have my opinions, but they're irrelevant. What I'm arguing is that nothing I've seen or read anywhere tells public servants that these are specifically non-partisan or partisan actions. So they're all debatable, which is a huge problem, because if it's a debate, then we default to the old game of "Rock, Paper, Rank." And then anything is permissible, so long as there is a fig leaf of justification. If we're going to turn our entire V&E system around the concept of non-partisanship - which I agree with - then we need a mutually agreed-upon, prescriptive definition of what that means. Otherwise we're wasting our time.

CPSRenewal.ca : On the (Seemingly) Partisan Nature of Public Sector Unions

Fri, 11 Sep 2015 13:50:51 +0000

I don't think you're missing something. It's one thing for our union to listen to the policies and debates and then quietly suggest to members that they think a vote for Party X lies within our interests. It's another entirely for our union to be actively participating in the debate, either for or against particular policies or candidates. And ethics aside, it's tactically stupid - what if the party the union campaigned against wins power? Think they won't remember it in the next round of bargaining? Dumb, dumb, dumb.

CPSRenewal.ca : Fighting Mental Health Dragons

Wed, 13 May 2015 12:35:57 +0000

Commendable start from the new Clerk. The challenge, as always, will be pushing it through the Clay Layer, but credit where it's due for at last identifying the problem. Your point about how people have built institutions in their image is a particularly interesting one. I remember having a conversation with a colleague about why a particular mid-level EX seemed oblivious to difficulties being faced by junior employees attempting to get their ideas heard and advance their careers; she pointed out that from the EX's point of view, the system worked perfectly fine the way it was, because it had brought her to where she was. That EX's experience is in the top tenth of the top percent of all public servants, but because we all generalize from our own experiences (or at least I do), she thought that her experience was typical of everyone else. Probably goes a long way toward explaining the lack of comprehension by some execs of the issues faced at lower levels (this chart drawn from the PSES highlights what I mean), because they just never experienced them. The system works for them, because it was designed for them. Good post. Much to think about.

CPSRenewal.ca : Risk Aversion in Hierarchies

Wed, 6 May 2015 13:37:46 +0000

I'm sure that when a decision-maker is uncertain, they'll often check in with their management. At the lower levels, perhaps; at upper levels, I'm not so sure. As you noted in your post, this is partly reflective of the relative size and complexity of most organizations - when you're at the supervisor or EX-minus-one level, you're close enough to the day-to-day work of your employees that you can keep track of who's doing what, and you have time to influence their decision-making. For directors and DGs, and certainly ADMs, there's just too many decisions to make each day, and too many people to keep track of, for them to check up whenever they're uncertain. So if they're not sure, it just doesn't go up. There's also the question of time and access - my staff can talk to me a dozen times per day if they need to, and I can talk to my manager at need. But even though the DM is my ADM's nominal supervisor, the ADM just doesn't have that same level of exposure to his boss that I do - sure, he can probably walk into the Deputy's office if it's an absolutely critical situation, but otherwise it's best if he saves it for their weekly (or biweekly, in many cases) bilat. In many cases, I think it's also a question of insecurity. People don't like to give off the impression that they're uncertain or don't know what they should do. The trope of the Unswerving, All-Confident Leader is one that people feel that they have to play, even if it's a pose. That said, your main point is still very much valid - we need to figure out a way to connect the decision-makers with the people doing the work. This is one area where personal style can play a role - for example, it is not at all unusual for my ADM to drop by the office of the junior IS working on a particular file if he needs information or wants to craft a message in a particular way. My staff was a bit freaked out about this at first, but my stance was that it cut down on miscommunications or mistranslations, and so long as they filled me in after the fact, I had zero problem with it. As a bonus, the first-hand knowledge of "this is how the ADM thinks, and this is the stuff he needs to know" made their subsequent work much better. Not every supervisor or manager is comfortable with that lack of hands-on control. Wish they would be.

CPSRenewal.ca : Are Public Servants are Interchangeable?

Fri, 22 Aug 2014 13:26:46 +0000

Some good points. I agree that interchange - or other, less temporary means of stepping outside the core PS - is going to be increasingly essential for the development of public servants moving forward. Things are moving so quickly in so many fields that we need a regular rotation of people to go outside, live on the bleeding edge for a while, and then come back in and help us play catch up. The problem is that in the current climate, most managers simply aren't willing to let anyone go - I know of several shops that have received notice that absolutely no temporary assignments, deployments, or acting opportunities would be approved, because management can't afford to give away an FTE without getting something back. Per the most recent PS report, lateral transfers are down by 17%, and promotions by more than 50%...both of which underscore the idea that there aren't enough development opportunities from within. So the biggest barrier is policy. There are two key problem areas. #1 - Choices. Right now the only options are Interchange or taking your 12-month/3-month sabbatical, and all of those options require management to consent (which is problematic for the reasons mentioned above). More options - and more flexibility in the employment of those options - would be very helpful. #2 - PS as a Binary Gate. Right now, you are either In the core PS or you are Out, and once you're out there are significant barriers (financial and bureaucratic) to getting back in. Some relaxation of these rules would be very helpful - something along the lines of a provision that allows me to hold off on transferring out my pension and benefits package for up to three years after my departure from the PS would be a good idea. That way I could resign to go off and try something (new job, start a company, whatever) and if it doesn't work out, I can reapply for open jobs like any other Canadian. If I get back in, my pension credits/years of service pick up where they left off.

CPSRenewal.ca : In Defence of Bureaucratic Language

Wed, 30 Jul 2014 13:45:29 +0000

The biggest problem I've seen with GoC strategic plans is that they aren't plans - they're pretty good at identifying challenges and what we would like the world to be like, but the "how do we get there" is missing. A good strategy looks at where you are, defines where you want to be, and then outlines the steps required to take you from A to B. That's the part we need to get better at.

CPSRenewal.ca : Unsolicited Thoughts on Destination 2020

Fri, 16 May 2014 14:08:57 +0000

** It strikes me as avant-garde but guarded by the old guard. Concur. We had our departmental champions and committees, and they did fine work, but so long as this remains in the realm of a special committee and a niche champion it will be easy for the murky middle to marginalize these efforts. It has to become a preoccupation of the mainstream This is why one of the things I would like to see is a continued presence (I'd go so far as to say pressure) from the Clerk with respect to the 2020 report. He's dictated his vision, and I'd like to see him follow up with the DMs to see how they're progressing against it. And if there are levels of management that are refusing to implement that vision, well, I'd like to see some examples made.

Keep Your Head Up : Mommy Brain

Thu, 28 Mar 2013 12:43:21 +0000

From the scienceparent, for future reference, in case it comes up again: Think about when you walk or run. When you do that, your feet are pressed against the ground or the floor, and your legs are pushing you up and forward. (You can demonstrate this by having her try to "step" up onto your hand - she can watch as the pressure forces it down). Everything that walks or runs - people, animals, bugs, what have you - moves by pushing off some sort of hard surface. Jumping is the same thing, except it's just a bigger push. Now think about swimming. Water is pretty heavy, but it's not as strong as the floor or the ground - fill a sink or a bathtub and move your hand slowly from one end to the other. You can feel how the water moves between your fingers, and if you push really hard, you get a splash - there's still a lot of "stuff " there that you can push against. Birds and insects fly the same way that people move or fish swim, except instead of pushing against the floor or the water, they're pushing against the air. Air isn't very strong at all - if you move your hand through it, or stick it out in front of a rotary fan, you can still feel it moving between your fingers, but there's not a lot of "stuff" there. Birds and bugs have a lot of special things that make them able to fly. For one, they are really, really light - just like it's hard to walk if you're carrying something heavy, it's hard to fly if you're big like a person. Birds also have feathers and wings that let them push a lot more air around - when they're flapping their wings, they're working really hard to push against the air like they do. (This explanation completely ignores things like aerodynamic lift, but I figure we can address that at 7 or 8.

Keep Your Head Up : Home

Thu, 31 May 2012 13:34:50 +0000

Take it from an air force brat with two younger siblings - this is pretty normal. Kids don't really have a good grasp of time or distance, but they absolutely key in on locations - you've mentioned before how she says "hockey" when you guys drive past Scotiabank or "breakfast" when you pass near my place. You've gone on extended trips with her before, too, and it's not like she can tell that you were only traveling for half an hour or so as opposed to several hours; the car is just a brief transition period between awesome places she goes to. So in her mind she probably saw the move - particularly since Grandma was there - as a nice long visit to "the place where Grandma is." She's smart for her age, but she's still a two-year-old. So now it's starting to sink in that, hey, it's been a really long time since she's gone back to the place she thinks of as home, and the lack of familiar cues is upsetting her. The room you're calling her room isn't /her room/ because it's not the room she has spent 95% of her life in. So she's angry and upset because she doesn't understand why you're not going back to the place she knows. There's not much you can do about it, unfortunately, this is just an entirely new experience for her. It's going to pass eventually. Don't worry about it too much, it's just frustration.

Keep Your Head Up : La la la la

Mon, 26 Sep 2011 18:39:31 +0000

Also, why on earth do you sell a bare-legged Halloween costume in Canada? These people have been outside in late October, right?

Macleans.ca : 'There's a problem'

Thu, 5 May 2011 16:40:59 +0000

Without getting into the specifics of Ms. Brosseau's case, how about a discussion on the general question of residency? I know U.S. Senators must be residents of the state in question, and I don't think asking candidates to be residents of the riding is too onerous a burden for qualification. The definition of residency would be simple enough to agree to - the prime minister and deployed service members can register to vote in their home ridings, so cribbing from those would be a good starting point. It's not a perfect solution, but it would at least eliminate the worst cases of token candidates; or, perhaps more accurately, assure the token candidates had at least a minor connection to the people they seek to represent. Parachute candidates typically have greater financial support/investment and would probably not be affected. But it would be a start.

Macleans.ca : Voter engagement

Fri, 15 Apr 2011 17:56:44 +0000

For official polling stations, certainly. And if a scrutineer shows up to a place where ballots are being collected, an EC official certainly doesn't appear to have any grounds under the Act to refuse that person entry - with the single exception being that a candidate already has two representatives present. The two-per rule is firm except for the brief period of time when the candidate enters a polling station to vote. I was initially a bit perplexed by EC's decision to discourage these sorts of initiatives, but it's beginning to make more sense the more I think about it. Parties might want similar events at senior's residences, town halls, schools, and you can't turn down some requests and accept others for fear of perceived bias. The burden on returning officers would be massive.

Macleans.ca : Voter engagement

Fri, 15 Apr 2011 15:50:30 +0000

A quick point on scrutineers: Candidates are allowed to have up to two representatives at any official polling station, but the presence of these representatives (or scrutineers) is not a legal requirement for the collection of valid ballots. From Section 137 (2) of the Canada Elections Act: Non-attendance of representatives (2) The non-attendance of a representative of a candidate at any time or place authorized by this Act does not in any way invalidate any act or thing done during the absence of the representative if the act or thing is otherwise duly done. If the presence of scrutineers was required then a minor candidate who thought he or she was going to lose could invalidate an entire election by simply not participating in the scrutineering of ballots or the collection process. This is a fairly common misconception - just thought I'd clear it up.

Macleans.ca : Bev Oda stops off for a bite to eat on the way home

Wed, 2 Mar 2011 13:19:54 +0000

"Oda licks the fry salt off a used plastic tray" is a Liberal party talking point? Wow, this election is going to be interesting.

Macleans.ca : The House of Commons is a sham

Sat, 19 Feb 2011 12:59:24 +0000

No, Jim Maloway wasn't a Member of Parliament then.

Macleans.ca : Idea alert

Thu, 14 Oct 2010 17:16:04 +0000

Solution: make drones smaller than womp rats.

Macleans.ca : Here's a crazy thought, Chantal

Fri, 1 Oct 2010 18:20:41 +0000

I don't gain anything either, really, I just think part of the problem with the system in general is that we (and here I'm referring to citizens generally and the media specifically) are so focused on parties and leaders that we keep forgetting that the only people we directly elect are our Members of Parliament. Party policies influence my vote, certainly, but they aren't the only thing I consider. Which is why I find it galling that the vast majority of what's available from professional media outlets covering federal politics comes down to Party/Leader A versus Party/Leaders B, C and D. We get yearly reviews of ministers of the crown from half the newspapers in Canada. How many do the same thing for their local MPs? So anyway, I tend to bring this up on occasion, to general annoyance - it wasn't intended to be an attack against you, as I'm still up-voting all of your posts that I see on general principle, given your unfortunate encounter with the followers of the Columnist Who Must Not Be Named.

Macleans.ca : Here's a crazy thought, Chantal

Fri, 1 Oct 2010 16:22:28 +0000

Far be it from me to interrupt the gleeful savaging of the straw man you've constructed, but I was simply pointing out that we still vote for our MP - who in most cases is associated with the party - not the party itself. So when you said, and I quote, that "you either vote for a party, vote for another or don't vote," I simply thought some clarification was in order, particularly since we've got an MP in the House these days who was elected as an independent by his constituents.

Macleans.ca : Here's a crazy thought, Chantal

Fri, 1 Oct 2010 16:15:07 +0000

Sometimes. In one provincial election I knew a candidate personally, and voted for him in spite of our disagreements on some policy issues, because I thought he would be a great addition to the legislature in general. He was thoughtful, articulate, and always willing to have his beliefs challenged by a well-stuctured argument. Naturally, he was crushed.

Macleans.ca : Here's a crazy thought, Chantal

Fri, 1 Oct 2010 15:59:59 +0000

There's no "party" box on the ballot, either, last time I checked.