Category Archives: public policy

First Nations Negotiation Process: …and into the fire

4 Replies

Yesterday I was commenting on Jim Prentices proposed reform to the First Nations treaty negotiation process. Specifically, he is considering giving the Indian Claims Commission (ICC) the authority to make legal rulings and thus settle agreements.

While the details have not all been made clear, it would appear that Prentice’s reform seeks to shift the ICC’s role from that of mediator – where any agreement is determined by the parties themselves rather than being imposed by a third party – to arbitrator – where agreements are imposed by the arbitrator and to which the disagreeing parties agree, in advance, to be bound.

The problem with arbitration is that it may not solve the underlying problems plaguing the process. For example, Prentice sites two shortcomings of the current process – it is too slow, and not perceived to be legitimate.

Arbitration, may increase the speed. However, it may not be any more legitimate, and could actually be less so…

For example, on what basis would arbitrated decisions be made? What would be the guiding principles the arbitrators would reference? Who would establish these principles? Will these be negotiated? If so, by who? All First Nations and the government? Or a representative sub-group? Ultimately, if the principles that guide the arbitration are not perceived by all parties to be fair and legitimate, or if the arbitrators themselves lack the respect of the opposing parties then the process may actually be seen as less legitimate then the current negotiations.

Indeed, this is even more important given the nature of the negotiations. Because the parties are negotiating over sovereignty this process is deeply political. Will Canadians, or First Nation, feel comfortable handing such a sensitive decision over to a third party who has no track record in making these decisions and so, to which the outcomes will be unpredictable?

Another problem with arbitration is that it does little to resolve any relationship/trust/cooperation problems between the parties. By bringing in a third party to resolve the dispute First Nations and the government will establish a problematic precedent: When we don’t agree, bring someone else in to arbitrate.

In many respects, treaty settlements are not the end of the process but the beginning. Treaties form the basis for a new relationships between First Nations and the government. Regardless of the treaty’s specifics, the parties are going to have to learn to work together more effectively going forward. To assume, that once the settlement is out of the way, all the actors will know their jurisdictions and powers and so will get along, is probably a false one. Just ask anyone whose ever worked on Fed-Prov relations…

If Canadians are serious about creating a new relationship with First Nations it feels odd that the first step in establishing this new relationship would be to put a third party between the two groups. Negotiating can be fair, legitimate and (relatively) speedy. The question isn’t about arbitration, it is about whether this (or any) government wants to make it a priority.

First Nations Negotiation Process: Out of INAC and…

Leave a reply

It is looking increasingly likely that Jim Prentice will reform the First Nations treaty negotiation process. Specifically, he is considering giving the Indian Claims Commission (ICC) the authority to make legal rulings and thus settle agreements.

While the full implications of this decision need to be weighed one part that is a positive development is getting these negotiations out of the hands of INAC. It must be difficult for First Nations to believe that the government is negotiating in good faith when the party they are negotiating with is the same party that provides all their services. This point became the basis for a discussion paper I submitted to the Aboriginal Report to the Liberal Renewal Commission and shared as a post on the Dominion Institute Blog.

“On the one hand, INAC is First Nations’ key partner, essential to ensuring service delivery, representing them and their issues at the cabinet table, and enabling them to raise critical issues in other government ministries. On the other hand, it is also their negotiation counterpart with whom it may be necessary to lock horns and disagree with to ensure a fair and equitable interpretation of their treaty (or in the case of aboriginal groups in British Columbia, to secure a treaty).”

It would appear that even Jim Prentice recognizes the perceived conflict of interest in having his department simultaneously represent First Nations interests within cabinet while negotiating against them… During an interview on Question Period he apparently conceded: “There has been a complaint in this country for 60 years that the government of Canada serves as the defendant and the judge and the jury and the research body. And that it’s too much. And the government of Canada is in conflicting roles. And that’s something that we are trying to get to the heart of.”

Amen.

So moving negotiations out of INAC is a plus. But their remains the question of whether an independent committee like the ICC will be any more legitimate. I’ve argued that the way forward is the establishment of an independent secretariat – with its head reporting directly to cabinet – as the home for these negotiations. Both sides need to represent their interests, handing the process over to a third party probably does not accomplish that. More importantly, an independent may be faster but it is also unclear if it will be more legitimate then the current process. In short, done incorrectly, this may be create as many problems as it solves…

I’ll pick up on this thread tomorrow. For now, Prentice is off to an interesting start. At least he’s thinking new thoughts. However, my fear is that this line of thinking will devolve into: “Out of INAC and into the fire…”

Don't Ban Facebook – Op-ed in today's G&M

5 Replies

You can download the op-ed here.

The Globe and Mail published an op-ed I wrote today on why the government shouldn’t ban face book, but hire it.

The point is that Web 2.0 technologies, properly used, can improve communication and coordination across large organizations and communities. If the government must ban Facebook then it should also hire it to provide a similar service across its various ministries. If not it risks sending a strong message that it wants its employees to stay in your little box.

One thing I didn’t get into in the op-ed is the message this action sends to prospective (younger) employees. Such a ban is a great example of how the government sees its role as manager. Essential the public service is telling its employees “we don’t trust that you will do your job and will waste your (and our) time doing (what we think are) frivolous things. Who wants to work in an environment where there own boss doesn’t trust them? Does that sound like a learning environment? Does it sound like a fun environment?

Probably not.

—–

Facebook Revisited

DAVID EAVES
SPECIAL TO GLOBE AND MAIL
MAY 17, 2007 AT 12:38 AM EDT

Today’s federal and provincial governments talk a good game about public-service renewal, reducing hierarchy, and improving inter-ministry co-operation. But actions speak louder than words, and our bureaucracies’ instincts for secrecy and control still dominate their culture and frame their understanding of technology.

Last week, these instincts revealed themselves again when several public-service bureaucracies — including Parliament Hill and the Ontario Public Service — banned access to Facebook.

To public-service executives, Facebook may appear to be little more than a silly distraction. But it needn’t be. Indeed, it could be the very opposite. These technology platforms increasingly serve as a common space, even a community, a place where public servants could connect, exchange ideas and update one another on their work. Currently, the public service has a different way of achieving those goals: It’s called meetings, or worse, e-mail. Sadly, as anyone who works in a large organizations knows, those two activities can quickly consume a day, pulling one away from actual work. Facebook may “waste time” but it pales in comparison to the time spent in redundant meetings and answering a never-ending stream of e-mails.

An inspired public service shouldn’t ban Facebook, it should hire it.

A government-run Facebook, one that allowed public servants to list their interests, current area of work, past experiences, contact information and current status, would be indispensable. It would allow public servants across ministries to search out and engage counterparts with specialized knowledge, relevant interests or similar responsibilities. Moreover, it would allow public servants to set up networks, where people from different departments, but working on a similar issue, could keep one another abreast of their work.

In contrast, today’s public servants often find themselves unaware of, and unable to connect with, colleagues in other ministries or other levels of government who work on similar issues. This is not because their masters don’t want them to connect (although this is sometimes the case) but because they lack the technology to identify one another. As a result, public servants drafting policy on interconnected issues — such as the Environment Canada employee working on riverbed erosion and the Fisheries and Oceans employee working on spawning salmon — may not even know the other exists.

One goal of public-sector renewal is to enable better co-operation. Ian Green, the Public Policy Forum chair of Public Service
Governance noted in an on-line Globe and Mail commentary (Ensuring Our Public Service Is A Force For Good In The Lives Of Canadians — May 8) that governments face “increasingly complex and cross-cutting issues … such as environmental and health policy.” If improving co-ordination and the flow of information within and across government ministries is a central challenge, then Facebook isn’t a distraction, it’s an opportunity.

Better still, implementing such a project would be cheap and simple. After all, the computer code that runs Facebook has already been written. More importantly, it works, and, as the government is all too aware, government employees like using it. Why not ask Facebook to create a government version? No expensive scaling or customization would be required. More importantly, by government-IT standards, it would be inexpensive.

It would certainly be an improvement over current government online directories. Anyone familiar with the federal government’s Electronic Directory Services (GEDS) knows it cannot conduct searches based on interests, knowledge or experience. Indeed, searches are only permissible by name, title, telephone and department. Ironically, if you knew any of that information, you probably wouldn’t need the search engine to begin with.

Retired public servants still talk of a time when ministries were smaller, located within walking distance of one another, and where everyone knew everyone else. In their day — 60 years ago — inter-ministerial problems were solved over lunch and coffee in a shared cafeteria or local restaurant. Properly embraced, technologies like Facebook offer an opportunity to recapture the strengths of this era.

By facilitating communication, collaboration and a sense of community, the public services of Canada may discover what their
employees already know: Tools like Facebook are the new cafeterias, where challenges are resolved, colleagues are kept up to date, and inter-ministerial co-operation takes place. Sure, ban Facebook if you must. But also hire it. The job of the public services will be easier and Canadians interests will be more effectively served.

David Eaves is a frequent speaker and consultant on public policy and negotiation. He recently spoke at the Association of Professional Executives conference on Public Service Renewal.

The Day in Print

Leave a reply

Two interesting pieces out today:

Veronica Kitchen and Karthika Sasikumar published an op-ed in today’s Globe and Mail. Entitled Air India’s Lesson for Promoting Security at Home it discusses how human security needs not only to be championed abroad, but is a basic principle that should be used when designing security policy at home.

Also, Peter MacLeod sent me this interesting piece in the Hill Times about the (failed) Liberal Renewal Commission. As many of you know most of the Liberal Renewal Commission reports were never formally published or translated. Several of those on the commission released their reports independently after the fact. I’ve posted links to three of them here.

Government Sponsoring Anti-Abortion March?

25 Replies

So much going on right now – tons to share on the Mozilla debate, the APEX conference, and the government bans on Facebook – will be getting to it all next week. In the meantime, I was wondering if anyone had any thoughts on this:

I was in Ottawa yesterday (May 10th) and ran headlong into the annual March for Life.

Politics around the issue aside (I’m pro-marching for what you believe in – whatever you believe) I was surprised to see that the big 30 foot long “March for Life” banners at the front of the march had the Government of Canada logo on them.

You, know, this logo:

Gov of Can logo

Is the government of Canada sponsoring anti-abortion groups? Normally you use this logo if you receive government funding. Not sure what the rules are around government funding political advocacy groups? Anybody know?

Alternatively, maybe the march’s organizing body just grabbed the logo and slapped it on its banners? Is this logo trademarked? Is this a trademark violation? Although I somehow suspect that no one at Justice is getting all that excited about it.

Either way, it is interesting…

Canadian Foreign Policy oriented Job Posting

5 Replies

I’ve recently been asked to sit on the advisory committee for Canada’s World. An emerging project that seeks to facilitate a national dialogue on Canadian Foreign Policy.

Shauna Sylvester, the founder and director has started the process of staffing up the project. Attached below is the notice. Interested parties should contact Shauna.

Job Posting – Online Community Facilitator and Editor

Term: 18 months
Rate: $55,000 to $60,000 based on experience
Location: Vancouver
Ideal Start date: June 11, 2007
Application deadline: May 23, 2007

Canada’s World, a project of the SFU Centre for Dialogue seeks a full-time On-Line Community Facilitator and Editor to join our national team. Canada’s World is a national citizens’ dialogue aimed at creating a new vision for Canadian international policy. Our secretariat offices are based in Vancouver and we work in collaboration with a series of academic and non-profit organizations across the country.

The On-line Community Facilitator and Editor plays a pivotal role in this collaborative initiative. S/he will report to the Director of Canada’s World and work closely with staff, interns, volunteers and advisory committee members in creating a virtual community where citizens can exchange ideas and learn about Canada’s place in the world.

The idea candidate will be an excellent writer, well-organized, and detail-oriented with a passion for and knowledge of international policy issues. S/he will be bilingual (French and English), enjoy working within a dynamic work environment and capable of analyzing complex discussions and distilling them in plain language communications. S/he will be experienced at facilitating on-line forums and blogs, enjoy editing and working with computers and social networking tools. S/he will possess a post-secondary degree in Arts, Social Sciences, Information Management or a related field, enjoy working in a face-paced dynamic environment and have the ability to think creatively.

Canada’s World is an equal opportunity employer. All interested applicants should submit their cover letter, resume and a 200 word response to the following question: What are some of the greatest challenges and opportunities facing Canada internationally in the next twenty years?

to: Shauna Sylvester shaunas@canadasworld.ca, Canada’s World Fellow, SFU Centre for Dialogue, 3303 – 515 West Hastings Street, Vancouver, B.C. V6B 5K3

Job Description

The Online Community Facilitator/Editor is responsible for facilitating the virtual presence of Canada’s World. S/he reports to the Project Director and works with web design staff in ensuring that the on-line components of the initiative are developed and delivered to maximize citizen engagement. Specific duties include:

Communications and Marketing

  • Assisting staff in identifying appropriate modes of marketing the website
  • Inviting community members to use the site, assisting them with access and logistical issues
  • Responding to information requests from community members in a timely manner
  • Developing on-line tools to maximize social networking and outreach to existing and potential community members

Editing and Regulation

  • Overseeing the approval of content across the site and ensuring that quality content is approved and inappropriate content is declined
  • Consulting with appropriate stakeholders when editorial issues arise and addressing them in a sensitive manner
  • Bringing attention to and/or enforcing community norms, rules and procedures
  • Acting as the primary liaison with the web hosting organization, suppliers and licensing bodies

On-line Programming

  • Uploading content onto the site, creating groups and folders and updating web pages
  • Maintaining a daily blog which summarizes the key ideas from the days’ online deliberations
  • Facilitating a daily on-line forum based on the key themes from the citizens’ dialogues
  • Designing and monitoring on-line surveys and developing summary reports of their findings
  • Tracking and monitoring web usage to identify areas for strength and improvement

Planning, Administration, Reporting

  • Providing advice to the Director and web design team on strengthening the on-line dimensions of the initiative
  • Working and supporting interns and volunteers in web-related activities
  • Providing written reports for presentation to funders as necessary
  • Participating in evaluations of the on-line program
  • Participating and representing Canada’s World at external meetings as requested
  • Participate actively on the Canada’s World staff team and share in the administrative duties

1946: The year the justice system failed

4 Replies

In this previous post on my grandfather, Israel Halperin, I (briefly) talked about how he was arrested, charged and unsuccessfully prosecuted by the Canadian government for violating the Secrecies Act during the Gouzenko Affair.

What I didn’t share (because it was discussed in the obituary) was how he was held without charge for weeks by the RCMP and interrogated by judges who wanted to use these interviews to build a case against him. This clear violation of Habeas Corpus – in addition to the above he was also held without charge and was denied access to a lawyer – is another cautionary about how the Canadian government has a history of placing its citizens in legal limbo.

Although the trial against him collapsed it was almost certainly a defining moment in his life, sparking his work as a human rights activist. Interestingly, thanks to my uncle and the research of Sandra Martin, I have the text of the letter my grandfather wrote (via his wife) to John Bracken, the Progressive Conservative Party leader of the time. The letter, which was read in the House of Commons in 1946, describes his illegal incarceration and pleads the opposition leader to help secure his release, or give him an opportunity to face his accusers.

For those who believe that Arar was an unfortunate blip in Canada’s history, Israel Halperin’s letter offers a powerful counterpoint.

For those uninterested in PDF’s here is the letter’s text:

Dear Mr. Bracken,

Although I am not a member of your political party, I feel sure that the matter about which I am writing to you will have your most serious consideration.

Since the 15th day of February 1946, I have been held prisoner by the RCMP at their barracks in Rockcliff, Ontario by an order signed by the Minister of Justice, the Hon. Louis St. Laurent.

It may sound fantastic but I have to tell you that no charges have been laid against me and I was given to understand that my status was simply that of ‘prisoner,’ held at the pleasure of the Minister of Justice, for an indefinite period of time and with absolutely no civil or legal rights other than those specifically granted by the Minister of Justice. I still do not know which rights, if any, the Minister of Justice is granted to me.

For the past five weeks I have been held in solitary imprisonment; denied access to legal counsel and newspapers: in short, cut off from the outside world.

I have written twice to the Minister of Justice in protest against this Bastille-like imprisonment. His replies referred to some Royal commission, but made no change in the incredible situation which I find myself. They have, in effect, merely confirm that the Minister of Justice is fully aware of the conditions of my imprisonment.

If I am accused of crime or misconduct, I deny the charge. I cannot know what accusation or slander have been presented to the public by the Department of Justice, either directly or through the mouths of others. But I have the certain knowledge that there cannot be a shred of true evidence for what is completely false.

This imprisonment is a terrible injustice to me and I charge the Minister of Justice with using his authority in a way which sets a dangerous precedent, one which should alarm every Canadian citizen.

I appeal to you to raise your voice on this matter and I beg you to read this letter in the House.

If you are interested in who I am, I will tell you that I am a native-born Canadian whose occupation is that a professor of mathematics in Queens University, Kingston, Ont. I come from a family whose concern for our country was sufficient to put two sons in uniform. One of them is writing this letter; the other is at the bottom of the ocean.

Since my letters are intercepted and I am never told whether they are sent on, I would be grateful if you would trouble to acknowledge this letter, if you receive it.

Yours very sincerely,

(sgd) Israel Halperin

Thank you for your public service stories

4 Replies

I just wanted to say thank you to the many of you who sent me your public service stories. I’ve been putting the finishing touches on my APEX presentation and your thoughts, advice and anecdotes have been helpful. If you’ve been holding back and opted not to send me something I’d still be interested in hearing from you.

Also, just a little housekeeping. Some of you may have noticed that I’ve put a tag cloud in the sidebar. I’m pretty psyched about this development and hope it will enable people to zero in on topics of interest more easily. FYI, I’ve also added a few new books to the book review section, although the readings been a little on the heavy side.

New lows on Afghanistan

Leave a reply

How I wish that the government wouldn’t hide behind our soldiers when facing criticism over the direction and leadership of Canada’s mission in Afghanistan. Their response politicizes the debate in an unconscionable manner.

If you are going to lead, then lead. Get used to the fact that that may mean answering some difficult questions from the public, and the opposition parties, from time to time.

The most recent example of this phenomenon comes courtesy of Stockwell Day in this weekend’s Globe & Mail:

“Mr. Day said yesterday that the opposition attacks had to stop because they were affecting Canadian officials in Afghanistan. ‘Stop maligning our corrections officers and stop maligning our troops’ Mr. Day said.”

The whole ‘criticizing the government is tantamount to not supporting our troops’ is not only appalling, it’s passé. Even President Bush doesn’t use this line anymore.

Let’s be clear. We aren’t criticizing Canadian soldiers or corrections officers when we express concern that the Afghan prisoners they hand over to local authorities may end up being tortured. These men on the ground are simply following orders (and may even assume that the correct safeguards are in place). We are however, being critical of the political leadership that oversees this mission and has a duty to uphold international (and Canadian) law.

I’m supportive of Canada’s mission in Afghanistan. We have real, material national interests at stake in this conflict. My concern is that we do it right, even when that may not be the easiest course of action.